Scored Review Criteria
These factors directly contribute to the
Overall Impact score, and Factors 1 and 2 receive separate scores.
-
Factor 1: Importance of the Research (Significance and Innovation)
- Potential for significant impact on biomedical or biobehavioral research.
- Novelty of scientific ideas, model systems, tools, or technologies.
- How the proposed new technology or improvements measure against the current state-of-the-art.
- Clarity of proof-of-concept tests and alternative strategies if the initial approach fails.
- Discussion of how results will inform future tool development (e.g., in other model systems or human brain).
-
Factor 2: Rigor and Feasibility (Approach)
- Use of engineering, physical science, computational, or other multidisciplinary methods to address the biomedical problem.
- Description of how integration of existing elements leads to new capabilities if applicable.
- Justification for any animal or non-clinical trial human testing as necessary for device development.
- Description of how animal methods would scale up for human use.
- Robustness of the proposed methods and potential for success.
-
Factor 3: Expertise and Resources (Investigator(s) and Environment)
- Sufficient depth and breadth of the multidisciplinary team's expertise.
- Team's experience and technical skills for developing and validating quantitative tools.
- Contribution and commitment of industry collaborators (if applicable).
Additional Review Criteria (Considered but not scored)
- Protections for Human Subjects
- Vertebrate Animals
- Biohazards
- Resubmissions: Evaluation of the full application as presented.
- Renewals: Evaluation of progress made in the last funding period.
- Revisions: Evaluation of appropriateness of proposed scope expansion.
- Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources: Evaluation of plans for identifying and ensuring validity of resources.
- Budget and Period of Support: Evaluation of justification and reasonableness in relation to proposed research.
Review and Selection Process
- Applications undergo scientific peer review by Scientific Review Groups.
- Reviewed applications receive a written critique.
- Highest scientific and technical merit applications (generally top half) are discussed and assigned an overall impact score.
- Funding decisions are based on scientific/technical merit, availability of funds, and relevance to program priorities.