Proposal Review Criteria
User proposals are peer reviewed against five criteria. For each criterion, the reviewer rates the proposal Extraordinary, Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor as well as provides detailed comments on the quality of the proposal to support each rating, noting specifically the proposal's strengths and weaknesses.
Additional Information
The reviewer also provides overall comments and recommendations to support the ratings given.
Review Criteria Details
Criterion 1: Scientific merit and quality of the proposed research
Potential Considerations: How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?
Criterion 2: Qualifications of the proposed research team to achieve proposal goals and contribute to high-impact science
Potential Considerations: Does the proposal team possess the breadth of skill/knowledge to successfully perform or contribute to the proposed research? If successful, would the proposed research deliver high-impact products (for example, be publishable in high-impact or top-10 journals)? Would the results help fill missing knowledge gaps?
Criterion 3: Relevance of the proposed research to EMSL's mission
EMSL's mission is to provide "integrated experimental and computational resources for discovery and technological innovation in the environmental molecular sciences to support the needs of DOE and the nation."
Potential Considerations: What is the relationship of the proposed research to EMSL's mission? Does the research project significantly advance the mission goals? To what level are both experimental and computational resources synergistically utilized to address the proposed research?
Criterion 4: Impact of the proposed research on one or more EMSL Science Themes
Potential Considerations: Will the proposed research advance scientific and/or technological understanding of issues pertaining to one or more EMSL Science Themes? To what extent does the proposed research suggest and explore creative and original concepts related to one or more EMSL Science Themes? If the proposal is in response to a Call, how strongly does it relate to the Call's focused topics? Will it advance EMSL along the directions specifically outlined in the Call?
Criterion 5: Appropriateness and reasonableness of the request for EMSL resources for the proposed research
Potential Considerations: Are EMSL capabilities and resources essential to performing this research? Are the proposed methods/approaches optimal for achieving the scientific objectives of the proposal? Do the methods represent a unique or innovative application of EMSL resources? Are the requested resources reasonable and appropriate for the proposed research? Does the complexity and/or scope of effort justify the duration of the proposed project–including any modifications to EMSL equipment to carry out research? Is the specified work plan practical and achievable for the proposed research project? Is the amount of time requested for each piece of equipment clearly justified and appropriate?
Overall Rating Descriptions
- Extraordinary (5): The proposal deserves the highest priority for support, and I would personally advocate strongly for this proposal. The proposal involves highly innovative research of great importance. It is a project that will either launch a new direction for the research area or will clearly impact one of the field's outstanding problems. EMSL is essential to perform the research. The proposal team has an excellent track record, and the results obtained are very likely to have high impact.
- Excellent (4): The proposal presents a well-conceived, original, research project with a strong potential for making an important contribution to the field of research. Multiple capabilities at EMSL are essential to perform the research. The proposal team has a good track record, and the results obtained are likely to have high impact. I would be willing to support this.
- Good (3): The proposed work is an extension of a project that has already had significant impact. Although not groundbreaking, it is near cutting-edge and is likely to produce significant results. The need for EMSL resource(s) is evident. The proposal should be considered if resources are available.
- Fair (2): The proposed research plan describes routine measurements in a well-worked area of research. Some of EMSL resources are required. The results from the research, although useful, are not likely to have high impact.
- Poor (1): Serious doubt exists regarding the potential impact and/or feasibility of the project. There is no evident need for the use of EMSL's integrated resources.
