F30 Review Guidelines

PA NUMBER: PAR-08-119

The purpose of the Predoctoral Dental Scientist Fellowship is to offer an integrated dental and graduate research training program that leads to attainment of both the DDS/DMD and PhD (or equivalent) degrees. The F30 program is a research training mechanism and the review of the application should focus on the following: the applicant, the research training plan, the sponsor, and the institutional environment/commitment. Information from the letters of reference should be used to inform considerations of these factors, and the final priority score should reflect the overall evaluation of the entire application.

Review Format

Provide your overall evaluation of the application. Summarize the most important points of the Critique, addressing the strengths and weaknesses of the application in terms of the review criteria.  Each scored application will receive a numerical rating that will reflect your opinion of its merit. Provide the key reasons for your recommendation of a level of merit based on the NIH rating scale. The review components (Candidate, Research Training Plan, Sponsor, Institutional Environment/Commitment) should be considered in determining the overall score.

Each major component of the fellowship review (Candidate, Research Training Plan, Sponsor, Institutional Environment/Commitment) 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. 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 (see above).

The following review criteria will be applied:

• Evidence of the applicant's commitment to a career in research; the applicant's demonstrated potential for a productive research career; quality of the applicant's academic record, awards, and honors; and extent and quality of applicant's previous and current research and/or clinical activities.
• Strength and specificity of the letters of references as well as adequacy of those reports based on the referee's opportunity to observe and evaluate the applicant's potential as a research scientist.

• Feasibility and adequacy of proposed integration of the DDS/DMD educational program and PhD training
• Objectives, design, and direction of the proposed research program;
• Specificity and clarity of the description of the research skills and knowledge to be acquired;
• Overall coherence and potential of the research training plan to provide the fellow with individualized supervised experiences that will develop research skills;
• Clarity, completeness, originality, and significance of the goals of the proposed research training plans;
• Adequacy of knowledge of relevant literature and current methods in the proposed research area;
• Adequacy of plans for the protection of human subjects, animals, or the environment, to the extent they may be adversely affected by the research proposed;
• Adequacy of plans to include women, children, and minorities as subjects in research, if applicable;

• Caliber of the sponsor as a researcher, including successful competition for research support;
• Evidence of the proposed sponsor's understanding of and commitment to fulfilling the role of sponsor and mentor;
• Evidence of an understanding of the candidate's research training needs and a demonstrated ability, on the part of the sponsor, to assist in meeting those needs;
• Strength and specificity of the sponsor's endorsement of the applicant, including identification of the applicant's strengths and weaknesses;
• Past research training record of the sponsor in terms of the rate at which former predoctoral trainees obtain their doctoral degree and go on to postdoctoral or other scientific careers;
• Adequacy of the sponsor's ongoing research program as a context for the expected research training and plan to provide the fellow with individualized supervised experiences that will develop his/her research skills.

• Evidence of a high quality training environment and an established DDS/DMD-PhD program;
• Quality of the facilities and related resources (e.g., equipment, laboratory space, computers, subjects populations) and the availability of research support;
• Institutional commitment to research training and career development, as demonstrated by ongoing programs, experienced faculty and the track record of the department in training students who become active researchers.

Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research (a required component of all NIH National Research Service Awards):

• Quality of the proposed plans for instruction in the responsible conduct of research (discussed in Sponsor or Environment).

Other Considerations

In applications with research proposals involving human subjects, consider the following issues:

Exemptions Claimed: Express any comments or concerns about the appropriateness of the exemption(s) claimed (e.g., for Exemption 4, is it clear that the information will be recorded by the investigator so that subjects cannot be identified directly or indirectly?).

No Exemptions Claimed: Express any comments or concerns about the appropriateness of the applicant's responses to the six required points.  Discuss whether the risks to the subjects are reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits to the subjects and/or in relation to the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result from the research.

As reviewers of the F30 applications you will determine if human subjects and/or human tissues are involved in the project.  If they are, evaluate whether the minority and gender characteristics of the sample are scientifically acceptable and consistent with the aims of the project, using the categories of "1" to "4" as follows.  Also examine whether there is appropriate inclusion of children (also determine whether the research is a Phase-III clinical trial.)

Evaluate acceptability as "A" (acceptable) or "U" (unacceptable).  If you rate the sample as "U", consider this feature a weakness or a deficiency in the design of the project reflected in the overall scoring of the project.

NOTE: To the degree that acceptability or unacceptability affects the investigator's approach to the proposed research, such comments should appear under "Research Training Plan" in the major review criteria above, and should be factored into the score as appropriate.

Evaluate acceptability 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.

Note any materials or procedures that are potentially hazardous to research personnel and indicate whether the protection proposed will be adequate.