This site is hosted by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD, USA.
Last Update: January 2, 2008
Contact Information
Disclaimers
MIDDLE EAST CANCER CONSORTIUM:
Small Grants Program - An Example of a Review Form
Principal Investigator
The application requests funds for:
A cancer research project or feasibility study
Establishing the infrastructure necessary to perform cancer research
Evaluate the merit of the application according to the following review criteria. For each criterion circle a numeric score, with 1 = Lowest Merit; 5 = Highest Merit. For each item space is provided for brief written comments.
- Significance of the project to cancer research and to the goals of the MECC. For proposed research projects, what is the probability that important new information will result? For feasibility studies and infrastructure requests, will the proposed effort help to establish a foundation for future cancer research project?
1 2 3 4 5 Low High
Comments:
- Feasibility of the project. Are the goals realistic? Will the resources be in place to carry out the proposed work?
1 2 3 4 5 Low High Comments:
- Ability and expertise of the principal investigator(s) to undertake the project. Does the written application provide convincing evidence that the principal investigator(s) has the ability, time and expertise to complete the project as proposed?
1 2 3 4 5 Low High
Comments:
- Adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed budget and time line. This relates to the question of feasibility to the project. Are the proposed budget and duration of the work realistic?
1 2 3 4 5 Low High
Comments:
- Overall merit of the proposed project. Considering the preceding four criteria, assign an overall rating. Note that this rating need not be the average of the preceding scores. Instead, this score should represent the overall quality of the application.
1 2 3 4 5 Low High
Comments:
Conflict of Interest Guidelines
Conflict of interest arises when a reviewer has a personal, professional, or financial reason to provide other than an objective review of an application or a proposal. If personal or professional bias is acknowledged by a reviewer or determined to exist by review staff, the individual is required to excuse him/herself from the review.
A reviewer will be considered to have financial conflict of interest if he/she has received or could receive a direct financial benefit from an individual or organization in relation to the application under review.
Even the appearance of conflict of interest should be avoided.
A conflict of interest may occur indirectly if an application is submitted by a close relative or professional associate of a reviewer, or if the relative or associate has financial dealings with an applicant. Close relatives are considered to be parents, a spouse or domestic partner, or children. Professional associates include colleagues with whom the reviewer has personally worked within the past two years. If a close relative or professional associate could receive a financial benefit as a result of a reviewer's recommendation, this financial benefit shall be treated as the reviewer's own.
A reviewer should not be from the same institution (or any of its branches) as the applicant, or have a "close relative" at that institution.