2013-2014 Cycle

Click into first text box to begin entering.  After that, press tab to proceed.

Please enter proposal number.   i.e., R821  

Enter your First Name here:

Enter your Last Name here: 

                    Rate each question (1-8) on the following scale. DO NOT leave a blank.


                                        1 - 2 Poor - Minimal potential

                                        3 - 4 Fair. Has deficiencies which should be addressed.

                                        5 - 6 Good. Workable idea. Has minor deficiencies.

                                        7 - 8 Very Good. Fundable in present form.

                                        9 - 10 Nearly Perfect. (Use sparingly.)

Has the Proposer:


Eval Scale is 1 to 10

...explained how project will CONTRIBUTE substantially to the field? Is project significance and importance justified? Has relationship of the project to previous efforts on this topic and the contribution it will make to the field been presented? Considerations may include: applicability of results to University or professional community; publishability of results; likelihood of valued outcome or product; potential for subsequent extramural grant.

Whole numbers only.


Eval Scale is 1 to 10

 ... justified that project is SCHOLARLY? Are project objectives presented in terms of hypotheses and/or questions to be addressed? Do objectives flow logically from the review of literature or related activities? Considerations may include: relationship to relevant prior work and/or soundness of theoretical /creative concepts as appropriate to discipline; relevance to previous research in discipline or creative endeavors; adequacy of literature review.

Whole numbers only.


Eval Scale is 1 to 10

...defended project�s CREATIVITY or ORIGINALITY? Do project outcomes build on previous work and contribute to field in new/creative ways? Considerations may include: probable contribution to new knowledge or creative work; degree of innovation; uniqueness of project in relation to similar research or professional development activity. Whole numbers only.

Eval Scale is 1 to 10

...justified METHODS, APPROACHES, OR PROTOCOL?     Has proposer explained how the project objectives will be met, i.e., how the hypotheses/questions will be tested/answered, or how the identified research problem will be explored?  Has a description of the procedures, methods, and/or plan and a justification for that design or plan been provided?  Does it appear the plan will allow the proposer to achieve the project objectives?  Remember that the description of methods will be discipline-specific, which means this section of a humanities proposal, for example, will be quite different from the same section of a social or hard sciences proposal. Whole numbers only.

Eval Scale is 1 to 10

... provided a timeline and sufficient evidence that the project objectives are ACHIEVABLE? Has a detailed time line been included?  Have activities of multiple proposers been described, if relevant?  Is projected time line consistent with scope of project? Has the proposer's previous experience and/or training in research methodologies and the discipline been explained?  Is time, equipment, materials and auxiliary intra/extramural support available?  Are problems anticipated and reasonable alternatives presented?  Have time and money already been invested?  If people are to be interviewed/observed, has their permission/acceptance or agency/institution permission/acceptance (as relevant) been obtained?  Have other special arrangements been made? Whole numbers only.  

Eval Scale is 1 to 10

...included clearly stated PROJECT OUTCOMES?Are adequate criteria proposed to judge successful completion of the project? In addition to the required final report, have other tangible outcomes been identified? Considerations may include: manuscripts for publications, papers for presentation, artistic or creative works, models, proposals for extramural funding, final reports for other agencies, demonstrations, exhibitions and manuals. Has the proposer explained how new knowledge, skills or abilities will be demonstrated? Whole numbers only.

Eval Scale is 1 to 10

...explained the PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT to be experienced? Has the proposer explained how the project will result in his or her professional development? Is a self-assessment of personal strengths and weaknesses relative to the project objectives included? Has the proposer explained the relationship of the proposed project to past/future work and the potential impact of the project outcomes on his or her future professional activities? Whole numbers only.  

Eval Scale is 1 to 10

...presented a CLEAR and CONCISELY WRITTEN proposal? Are the principal ideas understandable to those outside of the discipline? Has technical jargon been avoided? Have terms/concepts been defined where appropriate? Other considerations may include organization, grammar, readability, clarity of objectives, sufficiency of details, length of proposal, proofreading, and legibility. Panelists are expected to "grade low" rather than "give-the-benefit-of-the-doubt" in proposals where principal ideas are not understandable. Whole numbers only.  
Is the total CAS/reassigned time support (for each proposer) appropriate and justified? Select one of the following:



Is requested supplies/expenses/auxiliary budget appropriate and justified?


Select one of the following:



Is requested travel budget appropriate and justified?


Select one of the following:



Is requested student assistance support appropriate and justified?


Select one of the following:



Rationale for QUESTION 9    DO NOT use "Equal Sign" (=) in your text.

Give a rationale for your responses to question 9. This is essential for the Research Committee�s deliberation. (Rationale is required.) 

Is there technical violation (i.e., Double blind violation) that makes this proposal unfundable?



Selection one of the following:



Rationale for QUESTION 10  DO NOT use "Equal Sign" (=) in your text.

Please describe what makes this proposal  unfundable OR enter N/A if fundable.  This is essential for the Research Committee�s deliberation. (Rationale is required.)

PANELIST�S COMMENTS (REQUIRED):  DO NOT use "Equal Sign" (=) in your text.
A good review is useful to the proposer and helps the Committee to make decisions when disparate reviews are received. Panelists are responsible for the professionalism of their feedback to the proposers. Please be considerate with your written comments, yet maintain the high standards for quality associated with the Faculty Development Program. Negative feedback is to be accompanied by constructive suggestions. Please enter specific comments (related to your ratings in categories 1-8) identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed research. Remember that you are evaluating the proposal and not the proposer.
Do not press Submit Form button until you review your entries and print this form.

1.  Scroll up and review your entries.

2.  Click  File Menu, Click Page Setup, Change Margins: Left & Right .25, Top & Bottom .50, Click OK, Click File, Click Print, OK.


Pressing Clear the Form button will reset the form to blanks.