How to Review and Become a Reviewer

1
How to Review and Become a Reviewer

• Best professional development in higher education!

2

• Linda Mason, OSRHE
• lmason_at_osrhe.edu
• Gerry Cherry, UCO
• gcherry_at_ucok.edu

3

• Grant proposals usually reviewed by several
  people in the field and related fields
• Reviewers may be peers of the writers
• Not necessary to have received a grant to be able
  to contribute to the review process

4

• Guidelines vary by entity
• Selection criteria and scoring
• Published in the solicitation and federal
  register
• Peer review
• Agencies train new participants for review panels

5

• How does it work?
• Go to a location, usually DC
• Become very familiar with guidelines
• Stay for 2-3 days to review
• Debate your opinions with a panel of peers
• Work hard, maybe 12 hours/day
• Read and critique 10-12 proposals
• Total confidentiality
• Expenses paid, usually no or little stipend

6

• How does it work?
• Review by mail/email
• Receive a month before due
• Include it in your existing schedule
• Total confidentiality
• No stipend

7

• How does it work?
• Local agency or corporation
• Go to a location, usually the agency
• Read during the day
• Work with a panel of peers
• Total confidentiality
• No stipend

8

• Questions reviewers ask?
• Who is affected by this request/who is the target
  audience?
• Are these project goals and objectives realistic?
  
• Can the timeline realistically be met?
• Is the submitting organization capable of
  carrying out the project?

9

• Questions reviewers ask?
• If the project duplicates others in the field,
  what makes this one stronger?
• Is the cost of this project justified/realistic?
• If the project is to be continued after this
  grant cycle, where will the organization get its
  funding?
• Do the submitters have external support aside
  from the granting organization?

10

• Questions reviewers ask?
• Is there collaboration involved in the project?
• Has the organization shown prior success?
• Is the staff of this organization capable and
  accountable?
• What is the organization's board or support
  composition and how involved are its members?

11

• Why be a reviewer?
• Learn to write better proposals
• Learn about the programs of the agency
• Learn about the funded grants of the agency
• Network with others like you
• Provide a service

12

• Why be a reviewer?
• Learn the process and improve your funding odds
• See what us usually missing or unclear in
  proposals
• Clarify your communication
• Simplify your writing

13

• How do I become a reviewer?
• The agencys website
• Recipient of a grant
• The funder, program director, head of agency
• Apply online provide a vitae and short synopsis
  of why you may be of help
• Need not have grant experience, just content or
  program expertise

14

• Dear Program Director,
• I am an assistant professor of biology at
  Northeastern Oklahoma State University and have
  10 years of experience in teaching undergraduate
  students.
• My research interests are with amino acids
  produced by toads as possible use in treating
  obesity. Oklahoma has the highest child obesity
  rate in the nation.
• NSU has a student population of 28 native
  Americans. My experiences may be of help in
  reviewing grant proposals for the Summer
  Institute Program to Increase Diversity in
  Health-Related Research.

15
Agencies NSF www.nsf.gov

• Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and
  Transport Systems - Phillip Westmoreland
  pwestmoreland_at_nsf.gov - 703/292-8370
• Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences - Kaye
  Husbands khusbands_at_nsf.gov - 703/292-7276
• Engineering Education and Centers - Mary Poats
  mpoats_at_nsf.gov - 703/292-4667
• Research on Learning in Formal and Informal
  Settings - David Ucko, ducko_at_nsf.gov -
  703/292-8616
• Advanced Technological Education (community
  colleges) Elizabeth Teleseiteles
  telesejteles_at_nsf.gov 703-292-8670
• Alliances for Broadening Participation in STEM
  A. James Hicks ahicks_at_nsf.gov - 703-292-8640
• Communicating Research to Public Audiences
  David Ucko, ducko_at_nsf.gov 703-292-8616
• Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement
  Myles Boylan mboylan_at_nsf.gov -
  703-292-4617.and more!

16
Agencies NIH http//grants2.nih.gov/grants/g
uide/

• NIH Grant Review Process Video -
  http//cms.csr.nih.gov/ResourcesforApplicants/Insi
  detheNIHGrantReviewProcessVideo.htm
• Bridges to the Baccalaureate Program - Cathleen
  Cooper cooperc_at_csr.nih.gov 301-435-3566
• Behavioral and Social Science Research on
  Understanding and Reducing Health Disparities
  Dr. Gabriel Fosu fosug_at_csr.nih.gov 301-435-3562
• Summer Institute Program to Increase Diversity in
  Health-Related Research - Chief, Review Branch,
  Division of Extramural Research Activities,
  National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
  NHLBIChiefReviewBranch_at_nhlbi.nih.gov
  301-435-0270and more!

17
How to Review a Grant Proposal

• Gerry Cherry
• 2007 OSRHE Summer Institute

18
Questions You Will Ask When You Review Grants

• Does the application respond to the criteria?
• Is the project clear and specific (not obscured
  by jargon)?
• Do the ideas flow logically?
• Are activities consistent with each other?
• Does the application explain the need for
  assistance?
• Are the project objectives measurable?
• How will success or failure be evaluated?

19
How to Read Proposals

• Read the entire proposal before beginning to
  match the criteria against the application.
• Make your comments specific. This is a good
  program, is not helpful. Too many good programs
  dont get funded.
• Write your comments in complete sentences.
• Dont restate what the applicant wroteevaluate
  what it says.
• Make comments tactful and constructive.

20
Why do reviewers supply comments about the
proposal?

• To help the writer make the proposal better.
• At NSF, only 20 of first time grant proposals
  are funded.
• 50 of re-submissions are funded.

21
Constructive Comments

• When you find Weaknesses
• Useful The proposed budget categories lack
  sufficient detail to determine reliability.
  (p.41) The travel budget does not delineate the
  locations of the conferences.
• Less useful The budget is missing key items.
  (This comment is not supported with details).

22
Common Errors Reviewers Find

• Trying to fit a program into an unsuitable grant
  opportunity.
• Failing to answer all criteria in the RFP.
• Using old data or insufficient data
• Poor evaluation
• Unqualified staff.
• Missing budget items.

23
Common Errors Reviewers Find

• 7. Unallowable, inappropriate budget items.
• 8. Budget items not explained in the project
  narrative. (Why do you need to go to the French
  Riviera?)
• 9. No plans for sustainability or explanation for
  why not.
• 10. No commitment letters to document proposed
  activities, partners, and resources

24
Thank you.

• 2007 OSRHE Summer Grant Writing Institute
• Linda Mason, Ed.D.
• Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education
• lmason_at_osrhe.edu
• 405-225-9486
• Gerry Cherry, MA, CRA
• University of Central Oklahoma
• gcherry_at_ucok.edu
• 405-974-3474