External Peer Reviewer Orientation EPA Grants External Peer Reviewer Orientation

Reviewer Support Materials Requests for Applications (RFA) announcement Background Peer Review Process, Evaluation Criteria and Rating Classifications Guidance for Writing Grant Evaluations Guidance on Review of Quality Assurance Statements 5 regular ($800K) awards, 5 early career ($600K) awards Total of $7 million We have separate panels for regular and early career

Overview: Reviewer Assignments Check for Conflicts of Interest Each application: Assigned to a minimum of three primary peer reviewers One reviewer will be assigned the role of Rapporteur Each reviewer: Assigned to 8-10 applications DO THIS RIGHT AWAY. I will (try to) send reminder.

Overview: Application Reviews This review is designed to evaluate each application according to its scientific merit. For each assigned application, primary reviewers will: Read the entire application package. Prepare an individual written evaluation, in ARM. Read all abstracts regardless of whether assigned.

Overview: Application Rating Rate applications: Excellent, Very good, Good, Fair, or Poor Peer Review Teleconference: Discuss applications that received at least two ratings of Very Good or one rating of Excellent from primary reviewers Provide final rating Develop a final summary report Avg score of E or VG go on to funding consideration. Applicants must be able to respond to peer reviewer concerns.

Criteria are listed in descending order of importance Evaluation Criteria Criteria are listed in descending order of importance (i.e., Criteria 1 has the heaviest weight) Research Merits Responsiveness Project Management Other Factor (Innovation) Research merits: Research original, contributes to knowledge, technically feasible Benefits to the public, dissemination Responsiveness: Objectives, research needs, special factors in RFA Project Management Investigators Management (measure progress, achieve milestones) QA Statement Resource and cost controls (budget, etc.) Innovation: Challenge and shift paradigms

Guidance for Writing Grant Evaluations These guidelines are intended to help you write constructive, clear and defensible comments. Provide comments relevant to ‘Evaluation Criteria’. Comments should substantiate the given score. For each of the Evaluation Criteria: Provide comment as a Strength/Weakness. Provide the degree of strength or weakness: major or minor. At least one comment for each criterion. DO NOT LEAVE ANY BLANK. We realize that this is multidisciplinary and that comfort zones may be stretched. DO NOT comment on things like eligibility or human subjects.

Guidance for Writing Grant Evaluations Do not provide advice or suggestions for improvement unless it is phrased as a strength or weakness. Do not compare applications to each other or refer to another applicant. Do not recommend or state that EPA should fund the application. Comments should be in complete sentences. Do not ask questions Don’t just talk about what they are doing – characterize it as a strength or weakness

If problems arise during the review, please contact EPAReview. Guidance for Writing Grant Evaluations Spell out abbreviations or acronyms when used for the first time. Write comments in the third person. Do not use language that may be viewed as derogatory. Avoid the use of symbols and advanced fonts. If problems arise during the review, please contact EPAReview.

Closing Final Reminders Thank You Questions?