Proposal Review Criteria
User proposals are peer reviewed against five criteria. For each criterion, the reviewer rates the proposal Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, or Poor as well as provides detailed comments on the quality of the proposal to support each rating, noting specifically the proposal's strengths and weaknesses.
Additional Information
The reviewer also provides an overall rating of Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, or Poor, and provides additional comments to support the rating.
Review Criteria Details
Criterion 1: Scientific merit and quality of the proposed research
Potential Considerations: How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is the proposed research funded by an externally peer-reviewed project?
Criterion 2: Relevance of the proposed research to EMSL's mission
EMSL's mission is to provide "integrated experimental and computational resources for discovery and technological innovation in the environmental molecular sciences to support the needs of DOE and the nation."
Potential Considerations: What is the relationship of the proposed research to EMSL's mission? To what level are both experimental and computational resources synergistically utilized to address the proposed research?
Criterion 3: Impact of the proposed research on one or more EMSL Science Themes
Potential Considerations: Will the proposed research advance scientific and/or technological understanding of issues pertaining to one or more EMSL Science Themes? To what extent does the proposed research suggest and explore creative and original concepts related to one or more EMSL Science Themes?
Criterion 4: Appropriateness and reasonableness of the request for EMSL resources for the proposed research
Potential Considerations: Are EMSL capabilities and resources essential to performing this research? Are the proposed methods/approaches optimal for achieving the scientific objectives of the proposal? Are the requested resources reasonable and appropriate for the proposed research? Does the complexity and/or scope of effort justify the duration of the proposed project–including any modifications to EMSL equipment to carry out research? Is the specified work plan practical and achievable for the proposed research project? Is the amount of time requested for each piece of equipment clearly justified and appropriate?
Criterion 5: Potential of the proposed research to contribute significantly to highly cited publication(s)
Potential Considerations: If successful, would the proposed research be publishable in high-impact journals (i.e., top 10 journals)? Would the results help fill missing gaps required for a publication? Does the proposal team possess the breadth of skill/knowledge to successfully perform or contribute to the proposed research?
Overall Rating Descriptions
- Excellent: Outstanding proposal in all respects; deserves highest priority for support
- Very Good: High-quality proposal in nearly all respects; should be supported if at all possible
- Good: A quality proposal, worthy of support
- Fair: Proposal lacking in one or more critical aspects; key issues need to be addressed
- Poor: Proposal has serious deficiencies
