next »

[kangaroo_2]

I've been asked to peer-review a proposal for a small grant ($20,000). It's just a narrative evaluation (questions provided) but I've never done this before (advisor is away on fieldwork). Any tips?

I think it's a great project (in theory), though there's some technical information missing from the proposal. I've pointed out a few gaps/questions that would need to be addressed, but in general I'm not sure if my tone should be kind of advocate/letter of ref (since I think it's an important study), or criticism/impartial evaluation (more like journal review?). Some of what I've written sounds like I'M applying for the grant! (definitely more reference than review). When they ask about weaknesses, do I just point them out, or tie them back to strengths, etc.

I tend to hope that THIS grant is funded rather than a different one, but I'm not sure if that's my role. And I really don't think it's going to be all that anonymous, b/c they said that the applicant suggested me. We've never met, but I'm doing the only similar project...

Thanks for any advice!

[smbriver]

I think it's a great project (in theory), though there's some technical information missing from the proposal. I've pointed out a few gaps/questions that would need to be addressed, but in general I'm not sure if my tone should be kind of advocate/letter of ref (since I think it's an important study), or criticism/impartial evaluation (more like journal review?).

A lot of grants lack the specific details.  If you think the grant should get funded, then tie the flaws back to the strengths.  You also might ask a senoir scientist familiar with these types of reviews that is not part of the grant.

[snape]

If you think that this project should be funded you would do well to say so. Only the funders will know how the project compares to other bids they have received, but without your clear support a less good project could get funded, especially if it is very competitive.

[sinead]

Of course, it depends on the guidelines or guidance that they have provided for the review process. I have peer-reviewed grant proposals in my discipline before and I recall that I spent a lot of time making sure that my comments could be clearly understood by the applicants.  I thought it was important that if I thought it should be funded, it was clear; and, if I thought there were limitations that were problematic, that they understood why these were problematic.

I tried to review it in the way that I would have liked my grant application reviewed, with helpful and constructive comments for future revision, if necesary.

[science_expat]

It's different from a manuscript review in that you're not suggesting ways of improving it but really providing a summative evaluation. Without knowing much about the guidelines I would suggest:

1. A general paragraph putting the proposed work in the context of the field.

2. An assessment of the strengths and weaknesses (in separate sections) evaluating what will be learned from the proposed work, the quality and realism of the proposed methodology, the previous track record of the research team, and the cost-effectiveness of the proposed work.

3. Optional: A summary paragraph with a recommendation.

[kangaroo_2]

Thank you, science_expat, sinead, snape, and smbriver!

I guess I was stuck trying to figure out if the grant review should be like a letter of recommendation OR an evaluation OR a peer review - your responses helped me see how I should incorporate elements of each. Thanks again (I've just submitted it).