RESEARCH PROPOSAL EVALUATION FORM - PDF by nml23533

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 4

									Research Proposal Evaluation Form


                                                       FACULTY RESEARCH GRANTS
                                                                                RESEARCH PROPOSAL
                                                                                   EVALUATION FORM


                                                                                PROJECT NBR:           Rp-2005

Title:
Coordinator:
SECTION A: PROJECT STATUS – SPECIFIC COMMENTS AND ASSESSMENT RATING
1. Significance/relevance: (importance, potential impact,            1              2        3          4         5
original/duplication)
Comments:




2. Originality:
                                                                         1          2        3          4         5

Comments:




3. Approach: Strength of the research design and analytic            1              2        3          4         5
methodology
Comments:




4. Is the project feasible within the specified time limits?                  Yes                No
Comments:




5. Does the budget meets the proposal guidelines:                                                No
                                                                              Yes
Comments:




                                         1. Unsatisfactory     2. Poor       3. Good    4. Very Good    5. Exceptional



                                                                                                                      1
Research Proposal Evaluation Form

SECTION B: FUNDING RECOMMENDATION TO RESEARCH COMMITTEE


Section B will not be forwarded to the applicant.           On collating reviewer’s comments in
conjunction with Research Committee deliberation, consensus ranking and summary of additional
comments will be forwarded to the applicant.


OVERALL RANKING
Please select the statement that best describes the proposal by marking on box with X


 STATEMENT THAT BEST DESCRIBES THE PROPOSED PROJECT                                     RANKING
 Research at the forefront nationally or internationally
 Research that is nationally competitive
 Research that is nationally competitive but of lower priority in the competition for
 funds
 Work that is judged not suitable for support


COMMENTS TO RESEARCH COMMITTEE
Please place any additional comments that may assist in making an informed funding decision.




Evaluator:




Signature: ………………………..                                     Date:…………………………………..




                                                                                               2
Research Proposal Evaluation Form




                     GUIDANCE ON REVIEWING RESEARCH PROPOSALS


The Internal Research Projects are based on peer review. The Research Committee is very
appreciative of reviewer’s willingness and time in conducting an effective review process that
identifies research projects for funding.


Please review having in mind aspects as outlined below. Comments are invaluable throughout,
whether favourable/unfavourable or to perhaps identify areas that may require revision.


SECTION A: Project status will be anonymously forwarded to the applicant


Research Significance, Research Design, Relevance
    •   Does the study address an important and currently relevant problem?
    •   How valid/significant is the proposed research in terms of advancement of scientific
        knowledge and potential impact?
    •   Does the project qualify as research (as opposed to instruction or service?)
    •   Does the basic idea have merit?
    •   Are the objectives of the project clearly stated?
    •   Will the project advance knowledge in the field?
    •   Is the design feasible?
    •   Are the methodologies and procedures fully spelled out?
    •   Are the research methodologies and procedures relevant to the objectives?
    •   Are the methodology and research design sound?
    •   Can the project be completed in the proposed time frame?
    •   Is the budget request appropriate to the needs of the project?
    •   Are special facilities or equipment essential to success?
    •   Has the work already been done or is it being performed elsewhere (this should be
        viewed in conjunction/completeness of cited literature) and if so how strong is the case
        that the work needs to be duplicated in the national setting?


Originality
    •   is the conceived idea creative? Is the project original/unique?
    •   Does the project add to existing knowledge?
    •   Is the project ingenious?




                                                                                              3
Research Proposal Evaluation Form

Approach – Strength of Research Design and Analytic Methodology
    •    Is the conceptual framework: design, methods, analyses adequately developed, well
         integrated and appropriate to the aim/objectives of the project?
    •    Are the aims and objectives within the timeframe and resources proposed?
    •    If applicable consider human ethics concerning study design and future implications.
    •    How good is the proposal regarding the prospect of realizing significant scientific
         advancement?


Management – Feasibility of Work Schedule
    •    Is the investigator appropriately trained and well suited to conduct the proposed
         research?
    •    Is the timeline realistic?


Budget
    •    Please make comment as to whether the proposal represents good value for money in
         that the expected benefits will justify the cost.
    •    On considering Cyprus College and other support will there be sufficient funding to make
         the project feasible or are there irregularities/indications of over budgeting.


Please provide a few overall comments/recommendations to the applicant
In the event a proposal of poor quality is forwarded for review if you are able to assign a ranking
in Section B it would assist the Research Grants Committee in determining whether the applicant
should be encouraged to revise the proposal for future funding consideration.




SECTION B: FUNDING RECOMMENDATION AND COMMENTS TO RESEARCH COMMITTEE
Overall ranking and comments provided directly to the Research Committee from at least two
evaluations will be correlated and a consensus ranking and summary forwarded to the applicant.
Details of awards made by the Research Committee can be viewed under the section projects
supported.
If there are any enquiries or problems concerning project evaluations please contact the
Research Support Center or e-mail Anastasia Soteriou: asoterio@cycollege.ac.cy




                                                                                                 4

								
To top