Peer Evaluation

Peer Review Evaluation Criteria for Full Applications

Invited full applications submitted in response to NCBDDD Research Topics of Interest (RTOI) and Investigator-initiated Research Topics of Interest (I-RTOI) will be reviewed by a panel of experts in the topic areas relevant to each application's focus.

Investigators submitting full applications are required to address NCBDDD technical comments made with regards to their LOI. In addition, investigators should review and address each of the following six evaluation criteria as it pertains to the initial project description in the RTOI to which they are submitting a full application.

Evaluation Criteria

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?

Approach: Are the conceptual framework, design (including composition of study population), 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?

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

Investigators: Is the Principal 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)? DO NOT INCLUDE descriptive biographical information unless important to the evaluation of merit.

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? DO NOT INCLUDE description of available facilities or equipment unless important to the evaluation of merit.

Ethical Issues: What provisions have been made for the protection of human subjects and the safety of the research environments? (An application can be disapproved if the research risks are sufficiently serious and protection against risks is so inadequate as to make the entire application unacceptable.) The degree to which the applicant has met the CDC Policy requirements regarding the inclusion of women, ethnic, and racial groups in the proposed research. This includes:

1. The proposed plan for the inclusion of both sexes and racial and ethnic minority populations for appropriate representation.
2. The proposed justification when representation is limited or absent.
3. A statement as to whether the design of the study is adequate to measure differences when warranted.
4. A statement as to whether the plans for recruitment and outreach for study participants include the process of establishing partnerships with community(ies) and recognition of mutual benefits.