Definitions of Criteria and Considerations for S10 Critiques

Overall Impact/Benefit. Briefly summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the application. Assess the potential benefit of the instrument requested for the overall research community and have a significant impact on NIH-funded research. Provide comments on the overall need of the users which led you to your final recommendation and level of enthusiasm

1. Justification of Need
Give a brief statement on the nature of the application (instrument requested, number of users, type of research). Is the need for the instrument clearly and adequately justified? Is the equipment essential and appropriate?

2. Technical Expertise.
Does the institution have the technical expertise to make effective use of the requested equipment? How well qualified are the participating investigators to operate and maintain the instrument, conduct the projects, and evaluate the research results? How will new users be trained? How will biosafety procedures be implemented?

3. Research Projects.
Will research with the requested instrument advance the knowledge and understanding of the proposed projects? How would the research project of each major user be enhanced? You need to judge the need for and appropriateness of the requested instrumentation, not the research itself; these latter judgments have been rendered by other Study Sections.

4. Administration.
Is the plan for the management and maintenance of the requested instrument appropriate? Is the membership of the advisory committee broadly based to oversee the use of the instrument for a wide range of biomedical investigators? How will research time be allocated among the projects? Are the sharing arrangements equitable? If needed, are the policies to manage human subject, animal or biohazardous materials projects adequate? Is the financial plan for long-term operation and maintenance of the instrument reasonable?

5. Institutional Commitment.
What is the evidence of institutional commitment for continued support of the utilization and maintenance of the instrument? Is there appropriate documentation (letters from institutional officials)?

Resubmission. Are the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group adequate? Are the improvements in the resubmission application appropriate?

Budget and Period of Support. The reasonableness of the proposed budget and the appropriateness of the requested period of support in relation to the proposed research may be assessed by the reviewers. The priority score should not be affected by the evaluation of the budget. Base your budget recommendation on the total cost of upgrading or acquiring an appropriately equipped, but cost-effective, instrument. Recommend deletions or changes for inappropriate items. Do not concern yourself with the administrative cost floor or ceiling given in the program announcement. Please be specific in describing the requisite capabilities of an instrument appropriate to the needs of the investigators. This information should be valuable not only for NCRR staff in negotiating the terms of an award, but also to investigators who may have more limited experience than you with the requested instrumentation. For more details, please see Budget Information.

Additional Comments to the Applicant. Reviewers may provide guidance to the applicant or recommend against resubmission without fundamental revision.

[Return to Review Guidelines Page]