Evans-Allen Proposal Reviewers’
Instructions/Proposal Peer Review Form
Note to Reviewers
The purpose of your review is to assist the associate dean for Research in the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences (CAES) with assessing the attached proposal for receiving Evans Allen funding. This funding is intended to provide research scholars with initial and/or continuing funds to support a research study or program that addresses one of the College’s research initiatives, is consistent with the goals of NIFA, and that represents a potential contribution to agricultural science or related disciplines.
As a reviewer you are asked to objectively evaluate the proposal on a range of standards including scholarship, potential for measurable impact, advancement of knowledge related to agricultural science, and the likelihood of being completed by the research team using identified resources (equipment and expertise beyond the research team), and within the time frame.
Your assessment should be based on a complete and honest review of the standards identified in the review. Please keep in mind that high ratings of a proposal that do not meet the goals or requirements of Evans Allen funding contribute little to achieving the research initiatives of the CAES or to advance the development of the PI(s)’ research agenda and scholarship. Conversely, low ratings may not necessarily mean that a proposal lacks merit for consideration for funding. Such ratings may help the PI(s) address weaknesses in the proposal that result in a much stronger and more impactful project.
Please complete the attached form by reading each evaluation statement and assigning a rating representing your estimation of completeness (large to no extent) that the material in the proposal addresses each of the identified proposal component categories. Also, to assist both the associate dean and the PI(s), please provide comments indicating some basis for your rating. These comments will not be identified as coming from you but may be excerpted to share with the PI(s) as feedback and suggestions for revision or other changes.
Ratings of the proposal and comments on its quality and merit are very important. You are a significant peer to the PI(s) and your research knowledge and experience can provide exceptional guidance regarding the merits of the proposal. Please know that the content of your evaluation will be taken very seriously and will play a large part in determining if the proposal is considered for funding. Your time and participation in this review process is greatly appreciated.
1. Does the proposal describe a research question or issue that has current relevance or importance to an identified area of agricultural research? (Assess if the proposal identifies a research study worth doing. If so, the purpose of the study should be spelled out, its relevance or importance to the field and its potential contribution to agricultural sciences and the university.)
8. The proposal provides a clear description and explanation of the intention to conduct pilot and/or preliminary data collection and/or to develop data collection procedures prior to full stage testing of research questions or hypotheses.
22. The proposal provides a clear description of how the expected outcomes will be translated for use by stakeholders.
(List changes/improvements you believe should be made before the proposal is “acceptable” for funding support)
(Include notes relating to any issues that you feel should be taken into consideration regarding the feasibility and likelihood of the proposed project contributing to the field of agricultural education or science.)