Johns Hopkins University Faculty members applying for funding in the area of Tuberculosis are able to request an internal scientific review of their grant application. Internal Scientific Review is NOT available for the TRAC Faculty Development Award. However, assistance or review of applications for TRAC funding is available through the TRAC Request Services Form.
Requesting a review:
- Email your request along with your Specific Aims to TRAC Program Coordinator Kate Boehner, kate.b@jhu.edu, to request an Internal Scientific Review. Specific Aims must be received at least 3 months prior to NIH submission deadline unless previously reviewed through the TRAC.
Submitting your proposal for review:
-
- Research project plan and specific aims must be submitted at least 6 weeks prior to ORA deadline. You do not need to submit a final version but the proposal should be fully developed.
- Submission must include a cover letter stating:
- Your name, affiliation, contact information
- Type of grant and PA number
- Internal grant deadline (date due to ORA)
- Title of study
- Co-investigators
- Mentor
- Any areas in particular need of review that the applicant feels would be helpful
- Suggestions for reviewers (not guaranteed to be assigned)
Please note: If you would like a biostatistics consult, this should take place well before the scientific review via the TRAC Services Request Form.
The Developmental Core and the TRAC Steering Committee will assign reviewers based on topic. Two reviewers will evaluate the proposal and provide written feedback to the applicant. A call or face-to-face meeting may be offered by the reviewers, but will otherwise be anonymous.
NIH review criteria should be used by the reviewers, however unlike a NIH review, no scoring will take place and suggestions for improvement in the proposal are encouraged. A review template is available but is not required.
Review Criteria:
(1) Significance: Does this study address an important problem? (Not just an important topic but one where your study will make a significant difference in this field) If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that drive this field?
(2) Approach: Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well-integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?
(3) Innovation: Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches or method? Are the aims original and innovative? Does the project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies?
(4) Investigator: Is the investigator appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers (if any)?
(5) Environment: Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed experiments take advantage of unique features of the scientific environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?
6) Transdisciplinary nature of the research. Proposals which successfully bring more than one scientific discipline to bear on research questions of interest will receive additional partial point scoring to encourage transdisciplinary research.
Questions? Requests for additional information or questions about the process may be directed to kate.b@jhu.edu