Skip to Main Content
A-Z Index
Brooks College of Health
oneColumn handbook

BROOKS RESEARCH PROFESSORSHIP GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATION AND PROPOSAL PREPARATION 2023

A. PURPOSE

Brooks Research Professorship are provided by the Brooks College of Health to support research and scholarship. The purpose is to raise faculty research productivity related to rehabilitation and other health disciplines within the College. Priority will be given to proposals that will lead to the submission of an application for external funding or publication. These grants are competitively awarded to the most meritorious proposals.

Brooks Research Professorship:

The Brooks Research Professorship will be awarded to one (1) Brooks College of Health faculty who proposes research in collaboration with the Brooks Health System for $15,000 per year. The professorship will be awarded based on the attached criteria and processes.

These professorships will be awarded based on the following criteria and process.

B. SELECTION CRITERIA

Applying faculty must:

  1. Hold a tenured or tenure earning position at the rank of assistant, associate or full professor in the Brooks College of Health.
  2. Have a history of scholarly work as well as a potential for progress toward external funding and publication that will enhance the individual faculty's development, the Department School and the College.
  3. Submit a proposal describing the intended work for years 1-3. The expectation is that the study will be substantially completed during the first and second year, article preparation and submission and an application for external funding for continuation/expansion of the project would be prepared and submitted during the third year. The proposal must include specific identified potential extramural funding sources with anticipated submission date(s) as part of year 3 work.
  4. Electronically submit the proposal to Julia Mitchell in the Dean's Office by the deadline of 5 p.m. on Friday, June 2, 2023.

C. TERMS OF APPOINTMENT

  1. Appointment will normally be for three years.
  2. The Dean and Associate Dean reserve the right to reconsider the stipend if appropriate progress is not being made at the end of the first year and each year thereafter.
  3. Research of the Brooks Research Professorship must continue to be in collaboration with the Brooks Health System.
  4. Research accounts will be managed through the UNF Foundation and the Dean's Office.
  5. The research accounts may be used for any or all of the following:
    • equipment and supplies
    • staff assistance
    • teaching/research assistant
    • buy-out of a maximum of three, 3-credit hour courses per 3-year award at current adjunct rate approved by the Department Chair/School Director. (Awards less than 3 years will be pro-rated for course releases)
    • summer stipend equivalent to one 3-credit hour course
    • faculty or student travel associated with funded proposal
    • collaboration with other faculty at UNF
    • other needs as authorized by the Dean and Associate Dean

II. PROFESSORSHIP COMMITTEE

The BCH Research Professorship Selection Committee is comprised of faculty members from each Department School in the Brooks College of Health and at least one reviewer who is expert in research methodology. When a Brooks Research Professorship is available, the Brooks Vice President of Clinical Integration and Research will be asked to join the selection committee.

A. SELECTION COMMITTEE PROCEDURE

  • The Dean and Associate Dean serve as ex-officio members.
  • Committee members will individually review and score all proposals prior to the committee meeting without discussion regarding the proposals with any applicant or other parties.
  • Proposal merits or limitations should not be discussed outside the committee meeting.
  • The evaluation of each proposal will proceed as follows:
    • Committee members will submit their scores for each proposal by the end of business two days before the scheduled meeting. Scores will be tallied and proposals will be discussed in rank order from highest to lowest.
    • Following the discussion and review of all proposals, committee members will have the opportunity to re-score the proposals during the scheduled meeting. Results will be tallied, and rank ordered.
    • Should there be a tie, proposals will be discussed again, and a third scoring will be recorded.
    • Awards will only be made to proposals with scores above a minimum threshold of 80 points.
    • The final list of rank ordered proposals by highest score will be submitted to the Dean for funding consideration. The Dean will make the final determination for funding based on the committee's recommendations.
  • All scoring procedures will be confidential and anonymous.
  • For the Brooks Research Professorship, emphasis will be given to those proposals demonstrating likelihood for future funding and collaboration with Brooks Rehabilitation. Current areas of interests within the Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center include (but are not limited to):
    • Upper extremity recovery and assessment after neurologic injury
    • Walking recovery and assessment after neurologic injury
    • Virtual reality rehabilitation applications
    • Rehabilitation innovation and technology, including implementation and testing of novel adaptive equipment
    • Data analytics related to the development of a Learning Health System, designed to link outcome across the continuum, including Inpatient Rehabilitation, Outpatient Rehabilitation, Home Health, Assisted Living, and Skilled Nursing
    • Establishment of essential data sets across the care continuum, diagnoses, and professions; working closely with the data analytics team to standardize data collection and data entry practices.

Applicants are encouraged to discuss potential proposals with Mark Bowden, PhD, PT, Brooks VP of Clinical Integration and Research. Dr. Bowden may be reached at mark.bowden@brooksrehab.org or (904) 345-6626.

  • The Dean will notify all applicants of the decisions of the Selection Committee by July 1, 2023.

III. PROFESSORSHIP GUIDELINES

Review the below guidelines for the Brooks Research Professorship

A. NARRATIVE

The narrative should not exceed five (5) pages of single-spaced, typed information (excluding bibliography) using 1" margins and a 12-point Arial or Times New Roman font. Any proposal over 5 pages will not be reviewed. The following areas should be addressed:

  1. Title of the project
  2. An abstract of the project not to exceed 250 words
  3. The problem to be studied and its significance
  4. A brief review of the literature
  5. The methodology and analysis
    • intended sample/target population
    • sampling criteria & method
    • project aims and design
    • procedures
    • plan for data analysis
    • intended instrument(s)
    • limitations, if known
    • expected outcomes/results
  6. Projected timeline for project to include activities leading up to date of completion, dates of expected publication(s) submission and external grant proposal submission
  7. Plan for dissemination of results and external funding
  8. If you have received a previous Brooks Research Professorship, describe the subsequent publications, presentations, and/or grants received. Demonstrated application for grant funding must be provided.
  9. Budget proposal with timeline for 3 years
  10. Bibliography (not included in page limit)
  11. CV (limit to 2 pages- may use NIH bio sketch; not included in page limit)
  12. Support letters (two required; not included in page limit) Committee members making decisions about funding should not write letters of support. Letters from individuals outside of the College that demonstrate collaborative relationships discussed in the proposal are strongly encouraged. If applying for the Brooks Research Professorship, one of the letters of support must come from an individual in the Brooks system.

IV. METHOD OF AWARDS

Applications must be submitted electronically to Julia Mitchell by Friday, June 2, 2023, by 5 p.m. Applications will be reviewed, and successful candidates will be notified by July 1, 2023. Funds will be administered through the Foundation and the Dean's Office. Reviewers will evaluate each application based on review criteria presented below.¹

A. REVIEW CRITERIA TABLE

REVIEW CRITERIA
Review Criteria Description of Criteria Application Section(s) Points Awarded
Significance
(30 points)		 Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field? Is the proposal significant enough to generate future extra mural funding? Narrative
c. The problem to be studied and its significance
d. A brief review of the literature
e. The methodology g. Plans for external funding		 __/30
Innovation
(10 points)		 Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed? Narrative
c. The problem to be studied and its significance
d. A brief review of the literature
e. The methodology		 __ /10
Approach
(30 points)		 Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well- reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility, and will particularly risky aspects be managed? If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the research strategy proposed? Narrative
c. The problem to be studied and its significance
e. The methodology
f. The timeline		 __/30
Investigator(s)
(10 points)		 Is the Pl well suited to the project? If there are multiple Pl's in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If more established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-Pl, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; is their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project? Narrative
k. Biosketch of applicant(s)		 __ /10
Environment
(10 points)		 Will the scientific environment where the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements? Narrative
l. Support letters		 __ /10
Budget
(10 points)		 Does the budget fall within the maximum limits for the award? Is each item justified for the proposed project? Narrative
i. Budget		 __ /10


¹Adapted from https://grants.nih.gov/policy/peer/index.htm

B. SCORING OF REVIEW CRITERIA

Reviewers will score each review criteria as follows. The maximum score for an application is 100 points.²

SCORING OF REVIEW CRITERIA

Significance & Approach

Innovation, Investigators, Environment, & Budget

Descriptor²

Additional Guidance on Strengths/Weaknesses²

30

10

Exceptional

Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses

27

9

Outstanding

Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses

24

8

Excellent

Very strong with some minor weaknesses

21

7

Very Good

Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses

18

6

Good

Strong but with at least one moderate weakness

15

5

Satisfactory

Some strengths but also some moderate weaknesses

12

4

Fair

Some strengths but with at least one major weakness

9

3

Marginal

A few strengths and a few major weaknesses

6

2

Poor

Very few strengths and numerous weaknesses

0

0

N/A

Not present in application


²Adapted from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/guidelines_general/scoring_system_and_procedure.pdf