Announcing the CFAR Internal Scientific Review Process

 

CFAR Internal Scientific Review Process:

1. John Hopkins University Faculty members applying for non-CFAR funding in the area of HIV/AIDs are able to request an internal scientific review of their grant application.
   1. Internal Scientific Review is NOT available for the CFAR Faculty Development or International Research awards
   2. Letters of Intent requesting review must be submitted AT LEAST one month before grant deadline.
   3. LOIs will be submitted to the CFAR administrator and should include:
      1. Name, affiliation, contact information for applicant
      2. Grant being applied for
      3. Title of study
      4. Co-investigators
      5. Mentor
      6. Any areas of particular need of review that the applicant feels would be helpful
      7. Suggestions for reviewers (not guaranteed to be assigned)
      8. h.      Study Aims
      9. The Developmental Core with the Executive Committee will assign reviewers based on topic.  Reviewers are requested to provide feedback to the applicant on the Study Aims as soon as possible.
      10. NO LATER THAN two weeks prior to the internal grant due date (date due to ORA), the applicant will submit the research project plan to the CFAR administrator.  It does not have to be the final version, but it should be fully developed.
          1. The earlier the research plan is submitted, the better.  If there are an overwhelming number of applications submitted, they will be reviewed on a first come, first serve basis.
          2. 2 Reviewers will evaluate the proposal and provide written feed back to the applicant.  A call or face-to-face meeting may be requested by the reviewers.  The CFAR administrator is available to assist with compiling the comments, scheduling calls, etc.
             1. NIH review criteria should be used by the reviewers, however unlike a NIH review, no scoring will take place and suggestions for improvement in the proposal are encouraged.

Please note: If you would like a biostatistics or ethics consult, this should take place well before the scientific review via the CFAR services request process.  More information about service requests can be found on the web site (Hopkinscfar.org) or by sending an e-mail to cfar@jhmi.edu

Review Criteria:

(1) Significance: Does this study address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that drive this field?

(2) Approach: Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well-integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?

(3) Innovation: Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches or method? Are the aims original and innovative? Does the project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies?

(4) Investigator: Is the investigator appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers (if any)?

(5) Environment: Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed experiments take advantage of unique features of the scientific environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?

6) Transdisciplinary nature of the research.  Proposals which successfully bring more than one scientific discipline to bear on research questions of interest will receive additional partial point scoring to encourage transdisciplinary research.