Step 8

INTERNAL GRANTS REVIEW

The Internal Grants Review is intended to provide Research Scholars with a competitive advantage in external grant competitions. It connects scholars across disciplines, in multidisciplinary peer exchanges, on Research Institute proposals. It should improve the quality of the proposals and enhance the success rate for grant acceptance in the highly competitive funding environment of the Collegiate Contest.

All Institute proposals must be submitted to this internal review prior to being submitted for formal evaluation and external funding competitions (e.g., the Collegiate Contest).

The Internal Grants Review involves two sessions:

  1. Reviewer Report Sessions
  2. Response to the Reviewer Report Sessions

REVIEWER REPORT PANEL SESSIONS

A Reviewer Report Panel session consists of three Research Scholars from different disciplines. Each panel member’s draft proposal is critically reviewed by the two fellow panellists.

Each Research Scholar is responsible for providing a copy of their draft proposal in advance of the scheduled session.

Each draft proposal is assigned to a few peer reviewers. Using the ten-item Peer Review Report Form, the Research Scholars review the two draft proposals they have received before the scheduled panel session, following the ten-item Peer Review Report Form below and filling in the required fields.

At the panel session, the Review Reports are delivered in hard copy to be presented and discussed for 45 minutes.

The written Reports are required to prepare the Reviewer’s Response.

PEER REVIEW REPORT FORM

What is your name?

  •  

What is your discipline?

  •  

What is the title of the Research Proposal under review?

  •  

What is the name of the fellow Research Scholar whose proposal is under review?

  •  

In reviewing, bear in mind that you are reviewing a draft version of a Research Proposal for an internal review and that this is not a win-lose external form of review. Complete the Report as per the Research Director’s specifications. After a careful reading of the assigned Research Proposal, address the following:

In your own words, what is the main goal of the proposed study?

  •  

Identify two of the most cogent features of the Literature Review.

  •  
  •  

How could the literature review be improved?

  •  

Briefly explain how the research question relates to the literature reviewed.

  •  

How could the thesis statement or hypothesis be improved?

  •  

What parts of the Method Plan address the hypothesis/thesis effectively?

  •  
  •  

What parts of the Method Plan address the hypothesis/thesis ineffectively?

  •  
  •  

Is there a discernible discipline approach (something about the question, the perspective or the techniques that differentiates the proposal from the other disciplines)? Briefly explain.

  •  

As a reviewer, you recommend the proposal be:

  • Accepted with few or no adjustments – rated outstanding
  • Accepted with some minor adjustments – rated excellent
  • Accepted with improvements – rated very good
  • Rejected with an invitation to resubmit after major revisions – rated underdeveloped
  • Rejected with an invitation to consult with the Research Director – rated seriously flawed

What should be the focus of attention for the revisions?

  •  

Deliver the Report to the peers whose proposals you reviewed, following the Research Director’s instructions.

Insert the Reviewer Reports of your own proposal here:

  •  

The Research Director will probably hold panel sessions where fellow peer reviewers verbally deliver their Reports to the peers whose proposals they reviewed.

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWER REPORT PANEL SESSIONS

Responses to the Reviewers’ Reports are discussed in a follow-up session with the same peers. Each Research Scholar prepares, in advance, a Response to the Reviewers’ Reports, using the eight-item Response Form below. The Responses to Reviewers’ Reports are presented and discussed for 30 minutes.

Each peer should summarize their Response based on their answers to the eight question prompts. Then an open and free exchange of ideas should ensue. The Response session is informal in structure, operating more as a friendly exchange.

After giving the Research Scholars time to process the feedback and write their Responses, the Research Director convenes another set of panel sessions for the peers to respond to the reviewers’ Reports.

RESPONSE FORM

Use the question prompts to formulate a Response to the Reviewer Reports you received. Looking over the Reviewer Reports, answer the following eight question prompts:

Which parts of your proposal were assessed as addressing the hypothesis/thesis effectively? Briefly explain.

  •  

Which parts of your proposal were assessed as addressing the hypothesis/thesis ineffectively? Briefly explain.

  •  

Do you feel that these assessments were accurate and fair? Briefly explain.

  •  

Were any parts of the Reports inaccurate or not useful? Briefly explain.

  •  

What part of the peer feedback was most surprising to you? Briefly explain.

  •  

What feedback do you plan to act on?

  •  

What do you plan to ignore?

  •  

To what extent do you agree with the reviewers’ ratings of your proposal? How would you rate your own proposal? Briefly explain.

  •  

As a reviewer, you recommend the proposal be:

  • Accepted with few or no adjustments – rated outstanding
  • Accepted with some minor adjustments – rated excellent
  • Accepted with improvements – rated very good
  • Rejected with an invitation to resubmit after major revisions – rated underdeveloped
  • Rejected with an invitation to consult with the Research Director – rated seriously flawed

POST-REVISION ACCOUNT

After revising the proposal based on the feedback you received, provide a brief account of what you did and why.

Briefly describe what you revised and how long it took you to do so.

  •  

Which aspects of the Reviewer’s Reports helped with the revision?

  •  

How satisfied are you with the revisions at this point in time?

  •