How to Review and
Become a Reviewer
Best professional development in
higher education!

Linda Mason, OSRHE
lmason@osrhe.edu

Grant proposals usually reviewed by several
people in the field and related fields

Reviewers may be peers of the writers

Not necessary to have received a grant to be
able to contribute to the review process

Guidelines vary by entity
 Selection criteria and scoring
 Published in the solicitation and federal
register
 Peer review
 Agencies train new participants for review
panels
How does it work?








Go to a location, usually DC
Become very familiar with guidelines
Stay for 2-3 days to review
Debate your opinions with a panel of peers
Work hard, maybe 12 hours/day
Read and critique 10-12 proposals
Total confidentiality
Expenses paid, usually no or little stipend
How does it work?
Review by mail/email
 Receive a month before due
 Include it in your existing schedule
 Total confidentiality
 No stipend

How does it work?






Local agency or corporation
Go to a location, usually the agency
Read during the day
Work with a panel of peers
Total confidentiality
No stipend
Questions reviewers ask?
 Who is affected by this request/who is the
target audience?
 Are these project goals and objectives
realistic?
 Can the timeline realistically be met?
 Is the submitting organization capable of
carrying out the project?
Questions reviewers ask?

If the project duplicates others in the field,
what makes this one stronger?
 Is the cost of this project justified/realistic?
 If the project is to be continued after this grant
cycle, where will the organization get its
funding?
 Do the submitters have external support aside
from the granting organization?
Questions reviewers ask?

Is there collaboration involved in the project?
 Has the organization shown prior success?
 Is the staff of this organization capable and
accountable?
 What is the organization's board or support
composition and how involved are its
members?
Why be a reviewer?





Learn to write better proposals
Learn about the programs of the agency
Learn about the funded grants of the agency
Network with others like you
Provide a service
Why be a reviewer?

Learn the process and improve your funding odds
 See what us usually missing or unclear in
proposals
 Clarify your communication
 Simplify your writing
How do I become a reviewer?





The agency’s website
Recipient of a grant
The funder, program director, head of agency
Apply online – provide a vitae and short synopsis
of why you may be of help
Need not have grant experience, just content or
program expertise
Sample Reviewer Application
Dear Program Director,
I am an assistant professor of biology at Northeastern
Oklahoma State University with 10 years of experience in
teaching undergraduate students. My research interests
are with amino acids produced by toads as possible use in
treating obesity.
Oklahoma has the highest child obesity rate in the
nation. NSU has a student population of 28% native
Americans. I have directed 45 undergraduate researchers
over the past 3 years. My experiences may be of help in
reviewing grant proposals for the Summer Institute
Program to Increase Diversity in Health-Related Research.
Agencies – NSF www.nsf.gov

Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems Phillip Westmoreland pwestmoreland@nsf.gov - 703/292-8370

Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences - Kaye Husbands
khusbands@nsf.gov - 703/292-7276

Engineering Education and Centers - Mary Poats mpoats@nsf.gov 703/292-4667

Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings - David Ucko,
ducko@nsf.gov - 703/292-8616

Advanced Technological Education (community colleges) – Elizabeth
Teleseiteles telesejteles@nsf.gov – 703-292-8670

Alliances for Broadening Participation in STEM – A. James Hicks
ahicks@nsf.gov - 703-292-8640

Communicating Research to Public Audiences – David Ucko,
ducko@nsf.gov 703-292-8616

Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement – Myles Boylan
mboylan@nsf.gov - 703-292-4617…….and more!
Agencies – NIH –
http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/guide/

NIH Grant Review Process Video http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ResourcesforApplicants/InsidetheNIHGrantReviewPro
cessVideo.htm

Bridges to the Baccalaureate Program - Cathleen Cooper
cooperc@csr.nih.gov – 301-435-3566

Behavioral and Social Science Research on Understanding and
Reducing Health Disparities – Dr. Gabriel Fosu fosug@csr.nih.gov –
301-435-3562

Summer Institute Program to Increase Diversity in Health-Related
Research - Chief, Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research
Activities, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
NHLBIChiefReviewBranch@nhlbi.nih.gov – 301-435-0270…and more!
How to Review
a Grant Proposal
Questions You Will Ask When You
Review Grants
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Does the application respond to the criteria?
Is the project clear and specific (not obscured by
jargon)?
Do the ideas flow logically?
Are activities consistent with each other?
Does the application explain the need for
assistance?
Are the project objectives measurable?
How will success or failure be evaluated?
How to Read Proposals
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Read the entire proposal before beginning to
match the criteria against the application.
Make your comments specific. “This is a good
program,” is not helpful. Too many good
programs don’t get funded.
Write your comments in complete sentences.
Don’t restate what the applicant wrote—
evaluate what it says.
Make comments tactful and constructive.
Why do reviewers supply comments
about the proposal?
To help the writer make the proposal better.
At NSF, only 25% of first time grant
proposals are funded.
50% of 2nd re-submissions are funded.
85% of 3rd re-submissions are funded.
Constructive Comments
Weaknesses Useful: The proposed budget categories lack
sufficient detail to determine reliability. (p.41)
The travel budget does not delineate the
locations of the conferences.
Less useful: The budget is missing key items.
(This comment is not supported with details).
Constructive Comments
Strengths Useful: The proposed partnership descriptions
include sufficient detail to determine the
partnership benefit to the project. (p.41)
Less useful: The partnerships look great.
(This comment is not supported with details).
Common Errors Reviewers Find
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Trying to fit a program into an unsuitable grant
opportunity.
Failing to answer all criteria in the RFP.
Using old data
Using insufficient data
Poor evaluation plan
Unqualified staff
Missing budget items
Budget does not match program plan
Common Errors Reviewers Find
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Unallowable, inappropriate budget items
Budget items not explained in the project
narrative (Why do you need to go to the French
Riviera?)
No plans for sustainability
No explanation for why no sustainability
No commitment letters to document proposed
activities, partners, and resources
Partners are simply named with no
documentation of activities engaged in
partnership
Thank you.
2010 OSRHE Grant Writing Institute
Advancing Oklahoma’s Grantsmanship
Linda Mason, Ed.D.
Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education
lmason@osrhe.edu
405-225-9486
Thanks to Gerry Cherry for her slides.