What grant reviewers judge
Grant reviewers assess a project's intellectual value, impact, novelty, evidence, feasibility, methods, investigators and facilities. Patient impact and plans for using the results can also influence a funding decision, and funders' own criteria and annotated examples show how these expectations are applied.
Scientific merits and feasibility
A funding application should establish the question's scientific interest and the team's ability to answer it, with a realistic timetable and reasonable expenses; open-ended proposals make total costs hard to estimate. Reviewers commonly ask:
| Area | Questions |
|---|---|
| Merits | What are the project's intellectual value and potential merits? |
| Impact | How high is the expected impact, and how much new knowledge could be added? |
| Impact | How many people, groups or institutions could benefit? |
| Novelty | How novel is the work, and can its impact compensate for limited novelty? |
| Novelty | Will it generate new data and concepts or confirm existing hypotheses? |
| Hypothesis and evidence | Is the hypothesis valid? |
| Hypothesis and evidence | Is sufficient supporting evidence presented? |
| Aims | Are the aims logical and realistic? |
| Aims | Can they be reached within the funding period? |
| Methods | Are the procedures appropriate, adequate and feasible? |
| Methods | Are less costly alternatives available? |
| Investigators | Are the applicants qualified for the proposed work? |
| Investigators | What evidence documents their expertise? |
| Investigators | How much work has already clarified the question's importance? |
| Facilities | Does the facility meet quality checks? |
| Facilities | Does the project fit its general research interests? |
Patient impact and use of results
Patient advocates can sit on grant review panels. One advocate reported an application rejected after a negative opinion about researchers' view that patient involvement was irrelevant.
In 2009, most funding agencies required a knowledge-transfer plan in proposals and looked for more than peer-reviewed publication and a conference presentation.
Published review criteria
In 2012, NIH tutorials described common application mistakes against five criteria: significance, approach, innovation, investigator and environment. Annotated successful applications showed where the research plan met those criteria and summarised why each application was outstanding.