The review guidelines for senior fellowship applications are the same as for individual postdoctoral fellowships, except the emphasis is on the applicant's previous research experience and publications and not on scholastic performance.
REVIEW FORMAT
Each major element of the fellowship (Candidate, Sponsor and Training Environment, Research Proposal, and Training Potential) should be commented on in a separate section of your written critique. For revised applications, also comment briefly on whether the application is improved, the same, or worse. In addition, provide a one sentence summary of your evaluation at the end of each section. Please note that your comments will be used essentially unedited in the final summary statement sent to the candidate. After considering all of the review criteria, briefly summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the application and recommend an overall level of merit in a section titled Summary and Recommendation.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Briefly summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the application and recommend an overall level of merit. The review components should receive approximately equal with in determining the overall score. Provide the key reasons for your recommendation of a level of merit based on the NIH rating scale.
CRITIQUE: The following review criteria will be applied:
CANDIDATE: Assess the candidate's potential to become an important contributor to biomedical or behavioral science. Since the goal is to identify candidates who have the highest potential to develop into productive independent scientists upon the completion of their training, this element of review is critical to the overall score. When evaluating the candidate's potential, you may consider the following items where relevant:
- The extent and level of previous education including any undergraduate or graduate degree(s), the field, the date received or expected, academic performance, the mentor and the institution;
- Dissertation topic(s) in one or two sentences;
- Previous postdoctoral research or clinical experience, including: the mentor, institution, topic, and dates;
- Evidence of commitment to a career in research;
- Awards and honors, other relevant research experience, professional training, and publications;
- Reference letters; considering both the numerical rankings and the text of the letters (Be sure to protect the confidentiality of the references).
Important Note: Candidates with clinical degrees (MD, DVM, DDS, etc.) may have had little previous research experience but are eligible for postdoctoral fellowship support and may propose training that leads to a PhD degree. The candidate's specific background should be considered in assessing the potential to develop into a productive scientist.
SPONSOR AND TRAINING ENVIRONMENT: Assess the qualifications of the sponsor including his or her research expertise and prior experience as a mentor. Also evaluate the degree to which the level of funding for the proposed project, the environment of the host laboratory, the proposed training program, and the institution will be conducive to successful postdoctoral training.
RESEARCH PROPOSAL: Briefly evaluate the merit of the research proposal and the general approach, considering the candidate's research background and the respective contributions of the candidate and the sponsor in the development of the research proposal. The proposal must have scientific merit, but unlike a research grant proposal, it should be evaluated in the light of the candidate's previous training and career development. Therefore, avoid a detailed critique of technical aspects of the research, but check for flaws so severe that they cast doubt on the candidate's or the sponsor's scientific judgment and qualifications. If the research proposal involves human subjects, include an evaluation of the plan to include representation of both males and females, children (individuals under the age of 21), and members of minority groups as it relates to the scientific goals of the research. Try to limit the written critique of the research proposal to two or three short paragraphs.
TRAINING POTENTIAL: Considering the candidate's qualifications and previous research experience, evaluate the proposed training experience as it relates to preparation for an independent research career. Candidates may choose to remain in a scientific area related to their previous work or shift to an entirely new area of research, but the proposed experience must augment the candidate's conceptual and/or experimental skills. The overall training potential should be considered in light of the requested period of fellowship support.
Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research (a required component of all NIH National Research Service Awards): Evaluate the quality of the proposed plans for instruction in the responsible conduct of research (discussed in Sponsor or Training Environment).
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
FOREIGN TRAINING: If necessary, in a separate section, describe the scientific advantages of the proposed training in a foreign country and compare it to relevant training opportunities available in this country. Comment on any special talents, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that are not readily available in the United States or that augment existing resources. This consideration should not be factored into your overall recommendation and rating.
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS FROM RESEARCH RISKS: Evaluate the application with reference to the following criteria: risk to subjects, adequacy of protection against risks, potential benefit to the subjects and to others, importance of the knowledge to be gained. (If the applicant fails to address all of these elements, notify the SRA immediately to determine if the application should be withdrawn.) If all of the criteria are adequately addressed, and there are no concerns. Write "Acceptable Risks and/or Adequate Protections." A brief explanation is advisable. If one or more criteria are inadequately addressed, write, "Unacceptable Risks and/or Inadequate Protections" and document the actual or potential issues that create the human subjects concern. If the application indicates that the proposed human subjects research is exempt from coverage by the regulations, determine if adequate justification is provided.
If the claimed exemption is not justified, indicate "Unacceptable" and explain why you reached this conclusion. Also, if a clinical trial is proposed, evaluate the Data and Safety Monitoring Plan. (If the plan is absent, notify the SRA immediately to determine if the application should be withdrawn.) Indicate if the plan is "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" and, if unacceptable, explain why it is unacceptable.
GENDER, MINORITY, AND CHILDREN SUBJECTS: Public Law 103-43 requires that women and minorities must be included in all NIH-supported clinical research projects involving human subjects unless a clear and compelling rationale establishes that inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of the research. NIH requires that children (individuals under the age of 21) of all ages be involved in all human subjects research supported by the NIH unless there are scientific or ethical reasons for excluding them. Each project involving human subjects must be assigned a code using the categories "1" to "5" below. Category 5 for minority representation in the project means that only foreign subjects are in the study population (no U.S. subjects). If the study uses both then use codes 1 thru 4. Examine whether the gender, minority, and children characteristics of the sample are scientifically acceptable, consistent with the aims of the project, and comply with NIH policy. For each category, determine if the proposed subject recruitment targets are "A" (acceptable) or "U" (unacceptable). If you rate the sample as "U", consider this feature a weakness in the research design and reflect it in the overall score. Explain the reasons for the recommended codes; this is particularly critical for any item coded "U".
Gender, Minority, and Children Subjects Categories| Category | Gender (G) | Minority (M) | Children (C) |
|---|
| 1 | Both Genders | Minority & non-minority | Children & adults |
| 2 | Only Women | Only minority | Only children (age 21 and under) |
| 3 | Only Men | Only non-minority | No children included |
| 4 | Gender Unknown | Minority representation unknown | Representation of children unknown |
| 5 | | Only Foreign Subjects | |
NOTE: To the degree that acceptability or unacceptability affects the investigator's approach to the proposed research, such comments should appear under the "Research Plan" section of the criteria, and should be factored into the score as appropriate.
Animal Welfare: Evaluate as Acceptable, Unacceptable (expressed as concerns), or Comments. Express any comments or concerns about the appropriateness of the responses to the five required points, especially whether the procedures will be limited to those that are unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research.
BIOHAZARDS: Note any materials or procedures that are potentially hazardous to research personnel and indicate whether the protection proposed will be adequate.