Accelerator Grant Review

Reviewer
Proposal Title
Name of PI
Please provide a rating for each of the following selection criteria, using a 1.0 to 3.0 scale (1.0 being the best), with 1 decimal place allowed. For each criterion, use the descriptions provided as a guide. Each proposal will have its strong and weak points and few will precisely fit the descriptions. Use your judgment to determine where each belongs along the 1.0 to 3.0 scale. You must provide sufficient concise comments to enable the applicants to understand the basis for your score. Prose or bullet point forms are acceptable. Directive comments (advice that does not affect the score) are encouraged. Your anonymous comments will be provided to the applicants.NOTE: Questions or concerns of a purely administrative nature, such as whether certain budget items are allowable, should be noted on the last page and should not affect your evaluation.
PLEASE NOTE: Applicants should identify a field of study or research problem of major and rising importance, and their team’s particular competitive advantages in that area. As such, a successful application will identify an area in which the Lehigh team can become a recognized leader. Plans for continuation during and beyond the period of Accelerator grant support should reflect that potential. Large pilot projects without full expectation of substantial growth with significant external recognition, should not score favorably under the selection criteria or per the scoring rubric.
Opportunity, Originality and Potential Impact.Have the applicants identified a compelling opportunity? Have they identified a field of study or problem of major importance, evidenced either by consensus in a field or the applicants’ insight, such that we should expect interest and activity in the area to increase substantially? Have they, in addition, identified outside communities, including those in a position to support the work in the future, who will become invested in the program and support its success?
Score
1.0 – 3.0 / 1 – The applicants have identified a compelling opportunity. The area they identify is likely to remain very important for many years, and is not yet dominated or perhaps even well recognized by others. The applicants identify multiple constituents who will be able to support the program and will be highly motivated to do so. / 2 – The applicants identify a research area of clear importance and very likely to be well supported in the coming years. There may be other entrants in the field but it is clearly not too late to jump in. / 3 – Important elements are missing. The applicants don’t provide a long-term vision, identify an area in which others are already well established without explaining how they can take a leadership position, or fail to explain how the work would be supported in the long term.
Basis for your score and any other comments
Composition of Research Team.Have the applicants shown that they have a competitive advantage in this area? Collectively, are the investigators particularly well positioned to do important work in the field? Are they able to differentiate themselves from others working in the field by their individual and combined capabilities and/or the novelty of their approach? Does the group, or subsets of the group, have a history of working together productively? Will they have the facilities and other resources they need to build upon their existing strengths as described in the proposal?
Score
1.0 – 3.0 / 1 – The applicants clearly and convincingly identify their unique competitive edge in this area. Considering the constellation of expertise and past experience, it is difficult to see how a group could be better suited to pursue this opportunity. There is a history of successful collaboration among members of the team. / 2 – The team includes all of the necessary expertise. They will be very competitive with others who are working in the field. They are able to work productively together. Aside from the proposed Accelerator grant budget they have what they need. / 3 – It is not clear that the team has a real competitive advantage in this area. Team members’ experience may be appropriate to pursue work in the field but there is no sense that they will particularly stand out, or there may be gaps in expertise or in other resources they need.
Basis for your score and any other comments
Program Development Plan. Do the applicants present a well-conceived plan for building their program? While awardees will have significant flexibility in use of funds over a two-year period, they should describe their intended approach to growing their program, including their strategy for earning external support. Have they detailed initial steps and key milestones? Do these make sense in light of the current state of the field and ways in which the team expects to advance it? Is the size of the requested budget appropriate given the potential for growth of the research program?
Score
1.0 – 3.0 / 1 –The applicants identify a clear and viable strategy for program development. They clearly identify initial milestones. These are very well chosen given the current state of the field and the group’s starting position, are realistic, and are likely to contribute substantially to the group’s entre into the field and to early pursuit of extramural support. They identify multiple paths to growing the program, and are likely to be successful with more than one of them. Though the group may already be strong, Accelerator grant support will have a major impact on their long-term success. / 2 – The applicants identify a logical set of initial milestones and have a sound plan for meeting them. There is confidence that the team will make good decisions based on their early results and that the work will both establish their position in the field and qualify them for support from multiple sources. Internal funding through the Accelerator program will have a substantial impact on the team’s long-term success. / 3 – The applicant(s) fail to describe a clear plan for using the Accelerator grant to grow their program. The budget is either excessive considering the work to be done, unnecessary given their already established position in the field, or insufficient given what needs to be done.
Basis for your score and any other comments
Overall Score. Considering all of the factors above, how worthy is the proposal of our support? An Accelerator Grant award is intended to assist teams of Lehigh investigators in developing multi-investigator research programs in particularly promising areas. How likely is that to happen? Did the group distinguish itself through the novelty of its ideas, approach and/or composition? In forming your judgment, remember that high-risk projects with potential for high impact should be supported and that the path to the desired scope and duration will vary according to the nature of the project. Typically, some factors are more important than others in determining the likelihood of success of a given project. Therefore, while your overall score should be based on the scores you gave above and the bases for them, it is unlikely to be the numerical average.
Score
1.0 – 3.0 / 1 – A truly outstanding proposal in every regard, very likely to lead to establishment a new, internationally prominent, multi-investigator research program or enable the team to take a strong existing program to that level. / 2 – A sound proposal, likely to succeed and worthy of support. There is every expectation that, if funded, the team will be able to sustain a strong multi-investigator program well beyond the period of Accelerator program support. / 3 – The proposal is significantly lacking in ways that raise doubt as to the likelihood that Accelerator Grant support will lead to development of a significant, sustained research program.
Overall summary comments

1