School of Global Studies Research Grant Internal Peer Review form Part A: to be completed by the PrincipaI Investigator in collaboration with the Research Lead from their Department as follows: Anthropology: Jane Cowan International Relations: Jan Selby Geography: Research Cluster Leader as appropriate: Martin Todd – Climate and Society Mike Collyer – Geographies of Migration Carl Griffin – Histories, Cultures and Networks Clionadh Raleigh – Geographies of Globalisation and Development Julian Murton – Geomorphology Name of applicant(s): Deadline/submission date: Source of intended funding: Approximate sum being sought: (Draft) title of project: Please suggest two internal reviewers who might provide useful comments/critique of your proposal: 1. 2. Please attach a draft proposal (early rough drafts are fine!) Date submitted for internal review: Your proposal will be sent to two appropriate reviewers, and you will receive their written comments within 10 days of the submission date. Part B : REVIEWERS to complete Instructions to reviewers : In addition to answering the questions on this form, please mark sections of the draft document that: Need clarification Where content is confusing or incorrect Where content seems inconsistent from section to section Return completed form and draft document with any track changes to appropriate Research Lead for your Department. Medeni Fordham (M.Fordham@sussex.ac.uk) needs to be emailed with confirmation that internal peer reviewing has been completed prior to sign off by Peter Newell, Director of Research and Knowledge Exchange ideally 5 working days prior to application deadline. 1. What are the proposal’s strengths? 2. Describe up to three major weaknesses of the proposal (if any)? 3. Does the proposal raise an important question/problem? 4. Is the writing clear and concise? 5. Are the paragraphs organised to allow for intelligent skimming? 6. Any additional comments? 7. Would the proposed research contribute to resolving the question/problem? Checklist The following checklist is aimed to aid reviewers in considering areas that are weak and may need additional work: Importance and originality of the proposed research Soundness of the study design / appropriateness of the approach Adequacy / appropriateness of analysis proposed Appropriateness of references cited Clarity of presentation Completeness of presentation Accurateness / adequacy of abstract Are the outputs and deliverables clear and consistent with the study design/description? Are any risks adequately addressed? Is the impact plan clear and appropriate? Are any sections too long? o Abstract o Background/info o Specific aims o Significance o Study design o References Are any sections too short? o Abstract o Background/info o Specific aims o Significance o Study design o References