1. External Peer Reviewer Orientation
EPA Grants
External Peer Reviewer Orientation

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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.

10. Closing
Final Reminders
Thank You
Questions?