INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEW
EFFRD PROGRAM 2003
Before submitting your scoring review to OSPR (on or before TBD), please read all proposals
and any peer reviews, and answer the following questions. These guidelines are provided to
assist you in focusing your evaluation. Evaluations will be tabulated and provided to URC
members prior to the final funding review session on TBD. At the final review session, a
summary of the ratings will be used to assist in the funding determination process.
Complete an “EFFRD Proposal Review Sheet” for each proposal you review. Each proposal is
to be given an overall rating of excellent, very good, good, fair or poor. These ratings are
defined as follows:
Excellent: Definitely should be funded. No significant weaknesses. Meets all of the criteria
and goals of the program.
Very Good: Should be funded. Only minor weaknesses or concerns.
Good: Fund if resources are available. Has one major weakness or several minor
weaknesses. Applicant should carefully review comments and consider
resubmitting revised proposal in next round.
Fair: Recommend against funding. Has several major weaknesses. Significant work
required for project to be fundable.
Poor: Do not fund. Several significant weaknesses and does not meet any of the
objectives or goals of the program.
Please ensure that the comments on the review sheet support the overall rating indicated on the
review sheet. The comments will be used to develop the summary of the proposal review, and
should be intended to inform the applicant why a specific decision was made. Suggestions on
improving the proposal are encouraged. In reviewing the proposal, please comment on the
following three areas. Specific questions provided are taken from the proposal guidelines
provided to the applicants for preparing the proposal and are to be used to guide your review.
1. Intellectual Merit of the Proposal: It is critical that any proposal funded meets the highest
standards of academic and intellectual rigor. Hence, the majority of the proposal is dedicated to
supporting the intellectual merit of the idea. The specific sections and issues that are to be
evaluated in reaching a final rating in this regard include:
Problem Statement: Issues to be considered include: Is the statement clear to a non-
specialist? Does the statement demonstrate to the reader what is (and is not) being
considered? What is the importance of the problem to the research field or discipline? Is
there a succinct statement of purpose?
Background: Issues to be considered include: Is there a theoretical or research base for the
project? Has this base been described clearly and has the relationship of the theoretical or
research base to the problem been clearly indicated? Do the sources cited have a direct
bearing on the problem? Are there faults or gaps in previous work that this project will
Instructions For Review EFFRD Program 2002 Page 2 of 3
Objectives: Issues to be considered include: Are the objectives clearly stated? Are the
objectives clearly focused on the background statement of the literature? Can the objectives
be achieved with the procedures outlined in the next section?
Procedure: Issues to be considered include: Is the linkage between procedures and
objectives appropriate? Does the information provided give the reader a clear picture of the
work to be done? Could the reader replicate the study on the basis of the information given
in this section?
Schedule: Issues to be considered include: Is the schedule complete and realistic?
Outcomes/Expectations: Are outcomes likely to be achieved given research plan and
qualifications of researchers? Are proposed outcomes reasonable measures of the project’s
2. Relevance of Proposal to Objectives of the EFFRD Program: A successful proposal must
not only be of the highest academic and intellectual caliber, but must also meet the objectives
and goals of the EFFRD program. The Graduate College has limited funds to invest internally,
and therefore must maximize the use of those funds to achieve strategic goals. The main goal of
the EFFRD program is to provide “seed” funding for high quality projects leading to scholarship
and creative expression that will be likely to increase the University’s ability to attract external
funding. This criteria will take into consideration the ability of the proposed project to: 1)
promote the image and/or strategic mission of CSU; and/or 2) contribute to the economic
development of the region and/or 3) leverage external funding. The specific sections and
issues that are to be evaluated in reaching a final rating in this regard include:
Outcomes/Expectations: Is there a reasonable and well thought out plan to seek external
funding as one of the outcomes/objectives? Do the outcomes proposed advance the goals
and objectives of the EFFRD Program?
Personnel, facilities, and assurances: Do the personnel have a “track-record” of success in
obtaining external funding? Do the individuals’ resumes appear sufficiently strong to
compete for funding in this area on a regional, state or national basis? Does the applicant
demonstrate that other funding provided by the University has produce publications and/or a
history of ability to attract extramural funding for research, whether related to proposed
project or not.
Budget Justification: Is cost sharing involved? Is cost-share appropriately documented?
Does the cost-share component indicate external interest in the project or demonstrate that
the Department or college feels the project is important to the overall mission and purpose of
Appendices: Is there documentation of interest from local economic concerns – either
through letters of support, or more importantly, through letters committing matching funds
(hard dollars or in-kind support).
Instructions For Review EFFRD Program 2002 Page 3 of 3
3. Adequacy of Research Personnel, Facilities and Program Budget: An evaluation of the
applicants ability to complete the proposed project is critical, including a determination that
appropriate resources and facilities are available, and that the past record of the researcher
indicates a high probability that the goals of the project AND the program will be met. This
includes a record of publication and past activity, appropriate to the level of the researcher that
would indicate future continued success. The specific sections and issues that are to be evaluated
in reaching a final rating in this regard include:
Personnel, facilities, and assurances: Are the personnel technically qualified to undertake
the project? Do they have appropriate training and/or experience. Do they have a record of
publication in the area commensurate with their academic rank? If the research area is new
for the applicant, is there a clear plan to develop the requisite knowledge? Are there co-
researchers with the required experience to mentor the applicant?. Are existing facilities
and/or equipment adequate? Have the appropriate assurances been obtained (e.g., animal
subjects, human subjects, etc.)?
Budget Justification: Are expenditures clearly related to the procedures to be undertaken?
Is a reasonable basis for cost estimates given (e.g. cost per hour for student assistants)? Is
cost sharing involved? Is cost-share appropriately documented? Does the cost-share
component indicate external interest in the project or demonstrate that the Department or
College feels the project is important to the overall mission and purpose of the unit?