Menzies NHMRC Project Grant Application 2015 for 2016 funding - First Draft Proposal
Completed First Draft Proposals are to be submitted to research.domain@utas.edu.au
by COB Monday, 1 December 2014.
Information provided on this template will be reviewed by UTAS assessors. Please use this form for all
proposals, including resubmissions. Selected proposals will proceed to a second assessment to occur in
January 2015. Applicants proceeding to second assessement will be notified in late December 2014.
Applicants
Please complete all non-shaded sections of the form, adhering to the specified page limits.
Do not complete shaded sections. Minimum 12-point font, 2 cm margins.
Please provide written comments and scores in the shaded sections. Sections will autoexpand as required.
Reviewers
Chief Investigator A
Proposed Title
Is proposal a resubmission of a previously unsuccessful application?
NO
YES (see below)
Enter 2014 (or most recent) GRP scores below. Applicants are to attach one additional page addressing the following
questions:
 How does this proposal differ from the original submission?
 How will you address the limitations of each of the previously scored criteria?
 What will be done to improve each score?
Please provide the original Application, Assessor Comments and Applicant Response to Assessor Comments with your
response.
NB: Completion of the remainder of this form is optional for resubmissions. However, you are encouraged to
complete the fields below if it will benefit the reviewer in assessing your application.
ID No.
2013
Scores
Scientific Quality:
Significance &
Innovation:
Track Record:
Category:
Lay Summary: Maximum 100 words
Aims: Describe the general aims of the project, including a statement of hypothesis to be tested. 1/2 page maximum.
Reviewer comments:
1
Background: Briefly describe the the background to the project including scientific aspects and any other relevant
material. ½-1 page maximum.
Reviewer comments:
Research Plan: Outline the research plan, including brief description of experiment design, techniques, methods of
statistical analysis. Discuss novelty of project as linked to NHMRC category descriptors of Significance & Innovation
and Scientific Quality. 2-3 pages maximum.
Reviewer comments:
2
Outcomes and Significance: Describe the importance of the problem to be researched, and the potential
significance of the research. 1/2 page maximum.
Reviewer comments:
Research Team. Provide details of research team, including track record and collaborative history. 1 page max.
CIA
B
C
D
E
Title
Name
Institution
Brief track record of team, including collaborative history:
Reviewer comments:
3
H-Index
Reviewer Scores against NHMRC category descriptors.
Please refer to the attached assessment and scoring criteria.
Criterion 1 - Scientific Quality. Comment on the clarity of hypothesis or research objectives,
strengths/weaknesses of study design and feasibility.
Score (whole number between 1-7; weighting 50%)
Criterion 2 - Significance and/or Innovation. Comment on the potential to increase knowledge about
human health, disease diagnoses, or biology of agents that affect human health; application of new ideas,
procedures, technologies, programs or health policy settings to important topics that impact on human
health.
Score (whole number between 1-7; weighting 25%)
Criterion 3 - Track record relative to opportunity. Consider in relation to opportunity with regard to
factors such as career disruptions, administrative and clinical/teaching load, and typical performance
(including publications) for the field.
Score (whole number between 1-7; weighting 25%)
Overall Comments/Questions. Provide any overall comments on your assessment including any questions
for the applicant.
4