Reviewer Guide for the SIUE Graduate School Internal Research Grants for Faculty
Roles of the Reviewers
The members of the University Research & Development (R&D) Committee and the Research and Projects Advisory Board (RPAB) members are elected to review applications to Graduate School internal grant programs and to make recommendations for funding to the Graduate Dean. Ad hoc reviewers are also recruited for internal programs that require specific expertise.
While it is the reviewers’ role to evaluate proposals on the basis of stated program goals and guidelines, it is the applicants’ role to make strong and clear arguments that their project fits these goals and guidelines. Reviewers should gain answers to any of the review criteria and questions about the project from the proposal only; that is, the proposal should be considered “the world of the project.” Knowledge outside the text of the proposal should not be considered in its review.*
Applicants may receive a copy of the individual reviewers’ scores and comments as well as a summary of the panel discussion. Consequently, reviewers need to consider that their scores and comments are the main source of feedback for applicants. Reviewers need to be careful to write constructive comments. Scores need to be directly linked to the comments, and comments need to justify the reviewers’ overall recommendations in a way that is transparent to fellow reviewers and applicants.
*In extreme cases in which an individual reviewer has outside knowledge that they think should be considered in the review of the proposal, the reviewer is to contact the Graduate School to discuss the matter before bringing it to other reviewers.
Confidentiality
Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality about the review process and the content of discussions during review. Only the names of elected R&D Committee or the RPAB members are available to the general campus community. All other reviewer names are kept confidential to protect the integrity of the process.
Conflict of Interest
If any reviewer has a real or potential conflict of interest reviewing one or more proposals, that person is to inform the Graduate School as soon as possible. Disclose such relationships as having worked with someone on a project in the (relatively recent) past, although it may not necessarily constitute a conflict of interest. We will work with you to manage these issues. However, if you think you cannot objectively review a proposal, contact the Graduate School.
Unconscious Bias
Unconscious bias makes us believe we are making decisions about an individual’s capabilities, professionalism, or ability to contribute based on rational details when, in reality, these are based on our personal preferences.
To address unconscious bias, reviewers must continually broaden their viewpoints and work on educating others.
Think about these steps.
- When identifying a negative bias that you may have, make a conscious effort to learn more about that idea, individual, or group to understand how and why it makes you uncomfortable.
- When making critical decisions on an application, while maintaining confidentiality, ensure you invite others who can broaden your viewpoint and balance any hidden biases. Ask peers representing other viewpoints for feedback on potential preference patterns you may have and actively listen to their feedback.
- If you identify a fellow reviewer who may be making a decision with potential bias, engage them in a constructive conversation to identify any possible biases in their decision.
The following are additional resource you may want to consult:
Guiding Questions in Reviewing
- Has the applicant followed the basic guidelines?
- Does the applicant meet the basic eligibility requirements?
- Does the applicant make a strong argument for the project’s alignment with the goals of the program?
- Does the proposal make a strong argument for the significance of the research question or agenda?
- Is it clear that this proposed project is filling a gap in the research and can make a significant contribution?
- Is there a strong argument for impact on field, on other fields, and/or on society in general?
- Is there an adequate supporting literature review?
- How does the project fit within the applicant’s larger research agenda? (question of sustainability)
- To what is this project leading?
- Does it have a life beyond just the project period?
- Is there a potential for a longer-term research trajectory?
- If the project is funded by another grant, does the applicant include a plan to keep the scope of work in this portion of the project distinct from the scope of work funded by the other project? In other words: what is the plan to avoid “double-dipping”?
- Does the project have clear, concrete, and significant deliverables?
- Has the applicant’s previously-funded projects (internal or external) led to significant concrete outcomes, including publications, presentations, external grant proposals and awards?
- Is the information or data collection method clearly justified? Does the applicant make the argument that this is the best method?
- Is there a clear and reasonable justification of the budget?
- Are project costs reasonable to the scope of work?
- Did the applicant “pad” the budget?
- Has the applicant clearly outlined their math in calculating totals?
- Course buyout and summer salary need to be justified for the time period requested.
- Literature review: a very strong argument needs to be made for including time for supporting a literature review (i.e., why is it not already done).
- Multiple course buyouts and/or consultants: the proposal should include a strong justification for the time/budget requested for personnel on the project.
- Is there a clear and practical timeline?
- Given the method, budget, and timeline, is this a feasible project? Can the applicant deliver on what is promised?
