Transcript Become a Reviewer - Oklahoma State Regents for Higher

How to Review and
Become a Reviewer
Best professional development in
higher education!

Linda Mason, OSRHE
[email protected]

Gerry Cherry, UCO
[email protected]

Grant proposals usually reviewed by several
people in the field and related fields

Reviewers may be peers of the writers

Not necessary to have received a grant to be
able to contribute to the review process

Guidelines vary by entity
 Selection criteria and scoring
 Published in the solicitation and federal
register
 Peer review
 Agencies train new participants for review
panels
How does it work?








Go to a location, usually DC
Become very familiar with guidelines
Stay for 2-3 days to review
Debate your opinions with a panel of peers
Work hard, maybe 12 hours/day
Read and critique 10-12 proposals
Total confidentiality
Expenses paid, usually no or little stipend
How does it work?
Review by mail/email
 Receive a month before due
 Include it in your existing schedule
 Total confidentiality
 No stipend

How does it work?






Local agency or corporation
Go to a location, usually the agency
Read during the day
Work with a panel of peers
Total confidentiality
No stipend
Questions reviewers ask?
 Who is affected by this request/who is the
target audience?
 Are these project goals and objectives
realistic?
 Can the timeline realistically be met?
 Is the submitting organization capable of
carrying out the project?
Questions reviewers ask?

If the project duplicates others in the field,
what makes this one stronger?
 Is the cost of this project justified/realistic?
 If the project is to be continued after this grant
cycle, where will the organization get its
funding?
 Do the submitters have external support aside
from the granting organization?
Questions reviewers ask?

Is there collaboration involved in the project?
 Has the organization shown prior success?
 Is the staff of this organization capable and
accountable?
 What is the organization's board or support
composition and how involved are its
members?
Why be a reviewer?





Learn to write better proposals
Learn about the programs of the agency
Learn about the funded grants of the agency
Network with others like you
Provide a service
Why be a reviewer?

Learn the process and improve your funding odds
 See what us usually missing or unclear in
proposals
 Clarify your communication
 Simplify your writing
How do I become a reviewer?





The agency’s website
Recipient of a grant
The funder, program director, head of agency
Apply online – provide a vitae and short synopsis
of why you may be of help
Need not have grant experience, just content or
program expertise
Dear Program Director,
I am an assistant professor of biology at Northeastern
Oklahoma State University and have 10 years of
experience in teaching undergraduate students.
My research interests are with amino acids produced
by toads as possible use in treating obesity. Oklahoma has
the highest child obesity rate in the nation.
NSU has a student population of 28% native
Americans. My experiences may be of help in reviewing
grant proposals for the Summer Institute Program to
Increase Diversity in Health-Related Research.
Agencies – NSF www.nsf.gov

Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems Phillip Westmoreland [email protected] - 703/292-8370

Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences - Kaye Husbands
[email protected] - 703/292-7276

Engineering Education and Centers - Mary Poats [email protected] 703/292-4667

Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings - David Ucko,
[email protected] - 703/292-8616

Advanced Technological Education (community colleges) – Elizabeth
Teleseiteles [email protected] – 703-292-8670

Alliances for Broadening Participation in STEM – A. James Hicks
[email protected] - 703-292-8640

Communicating Research to Public Audiences – David Ucko,
[email protected] 703-292-8616

Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement – Myles Boylan
[email protected] - 703-292-4617…….and more!
Agencies – NIH –
http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/guide/

NIH Grant Review Process Video http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ResourcesforApplicants/InsidetheNIHGrantReviewProcess
Video.htm

Bridges to the Baccalaureate Program - Cathleen Cooper
[email protected] – 301-435-3566

Behavioral and Social Science Research on Understanding and Reducing
Health Disparities – Dr. Gabriel Fosu [email protected] – 301-435-3562

Summer Institute Program to Increase Diversity in Health-Related Research Chief, Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research Activities, National
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [email protected] –
301-435-0270…and more!
How to Review
a Grant Proposal
Gerry Cherry
2007 OSRHE Summer Institute
Questions You Will Ask When You
Review Grants
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Does the application respond to the criteria?
Is the project clear and specific (not obscured by
jargon)?
Do the ideas flow logically?
Are activities consistent with each other?
Does the application explain the need for
assistance?
Are the project objectives measurable?
How will success or failure be evaluated?
How to Read Proposals
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Read the entire proposal before beginning to
match the criteria against the application.
Make your comments specific. “This is a good
program,” is not helpful. Too many good
programs don’t get funded.
Write your comments in complete sentences.
Don’t restate what the applicant wrote—
evaluate what it says.
Make comments tactful and constructive.
Why do reviewers supply comments
about the proposal?
To help the writer make the proposal better.
At NSF, only 20% of first time grant
proposals are funded.
50% of re-submissions are funded.
Constructive Comments
When you find Weaknesses
Useful: The proposed budget categories lack
sufficient detail to determine reliability. (p.41)
The travel budget does not delineate the
locations of the conferences.
Less useful: The budget is missing key items.
(This comment is not supported with details).
Common Errors Reviewers Find
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Trying to fit a program into an unsuitable
grant opportunity.
Failing to answer all criteria in the RFP.
Using old data or insufficient data
Poor evaluation
Unqualified staff.
Missing budget items.
Common Errors Reviewers Find
7. Unallowable, inappropriate budget items.
8. Budget items not explained in the project
narrative. (Why do you need to go to the
French Riviera?)
9. No plans for sustainability or explanation
for why not.
10. No commitment letters to document
proposed activities, partners, and resources
Thank you.
2007 OSRHE Summer Grant Writing Institute
Linda Mason, Ed.D.
Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education
[email protected]
405-225-9486
Gerry Cherry, MA, CRA
University of Central Oklahoma
[email protected]
405-974-3474