Proposals should focus on innovative health initiatives that support the mission of the Brooks College of Health. The proposals are for the support of new research. Grants may be awarded in the form of scholarships of up to $5,000 for proposals with a single investigator or up to $10,000 for proposals with multiple interdisciplinary investigators.
Applications should NOT exceed 4 pages (single-spaced, 12 pt. font), and will include:
Not included in the 4-page limit
Application Requirements and Deadline:
The application on PDF format should be submitted to Julia Mitchell by Friday, March 31, 2023.
The BCH research and scholarship committee will review the proposals in April 2023 and make the award recommendations to the Dean’s office who will announce decisions by April 30, 2023. Funds will be available starting Fall semester 2023 and will be administered through the Foundation and the Dean's Office. In addition, all awardees will be expected to present their research at one of the BCH Research Collaboration sessions.
The BCH Research and Scholarship 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.
| Review Criteria | Description of Criteria | 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? | __/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? | __ /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? | __/30 |
| Dissemination Plan (10 points) |
Dissemination Plan is clearly articulated. It is appropriate of the research question and study design. It delineates how findings will be published or presented, shared with the community, and/or support student scholarship. | __ /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? | __ /10 |
| Budget (10 points) |
Does the budget fall within the maximum limits for the award? Is each item justified for the proposed project? | __ /10 |
¹Adapted from https://grants.nih.gov/policy/peer/index.htm
Reviewers will score each review criteria as follows. The maximum score for an application is 100 points.²
|
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
