Grant-In-Aid Template
Please use this template for your draft critique. Once the critique is completed, save it to your preferred text program. Then copy and paste YOUR COMMENTS into the appropriate sections in the online critique form in G@H. You will want to use your saved text document to summarize your critique at the meeting.
The American Heart Association‘s Grants@Heart (G@H) research system requires that all text boxes and radio buttons be filled in before you can Submit your critique.
Brief Summary of the Proposal: Enter a brief summary. Please be certain that your critique is concise, constructive and clearly addresses all of the peer review criteria. (insert information - copy & paste this information into the appropriate boxes for the application in G@H)
Significance: Does this study address an important problem broadly related to cardiovascular disease or stroke? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts, methods, and technologies that drive this field? (insert information - copy & paste this information into the appropriate boxes for the application in G@H)
Approach:
Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, well reasoned, and feasible (as determined by preliminary data) and appropriate to the aims of the project? The assessment of preliminary data should be put into perspective such that bold new ideas and risk-taking on the part of beginning investigators are encouraged rather than stymied. Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics? (insert information - copy & paste this information into the appropriate boxes for the application in G@H)
Innovation:
Is the project original and innovative? For example: Does the project challenge existing paradigms and address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field? Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools, or technologies for this area? (insert information - copy & paste this information into the appropriate boxes for the application in G@H)
Investigator:
Is the investigator appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers? Does the investigative team bring complementary and integrated expertise to the project (if applicable)? (insert information - copy & paste this information into the appropriate boxes for the application in G@H)
Environment:
Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed studies benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support as demonstrated in the department head letter? (insert information - copy & paste this information into the appropriate boxes for the application in G@H)
Overall Evaluations:
Provide in one paragraph, a rationale that briefly summarizes the most important points of the critique, addressing the strengths and weaknesses of the application. Your initial priority score should be consistent with this overall evaluation. (insert information - copy & paste this information into the appropriate boxes for the application in G@H)
The G@H Concerns Selection is separate from the critique text boxes. Answering Yes toany of the concerns will bring a pop‐up window for you to enter your concern about thatarea of the application. Please indicate page numbers within the application whereconcerns are raised. You can edit your concern comments, by clicking on the View Comments button, up until midnight before the meeting day; or until you Submit yourcritique. This information will be captured by the system and discussed during themeeting after members have given their priority score.
Concerns Selection
Alternative Application (pending ‐ not AHA) Yes or No View Comments
Budget Yes or No View Comments
Ethical Yes or No View Comments
Institutional Assurance Needed Yes or No View Comments
Eligibility Issue Yes or No View Comments
Overlapping Award (not AHA)Yes or No View Comments
Other Policy Concern Yes or No View Comments
(e.g., current or pending AHA awards; degree not
held; relevance; $ caps on extramural support)
Summary of Discussion:
Post information after the committee discussion on the application. Include any additional points raised during the committee’s discussion, especially those not outlined in the primary or secondary review. (If you are Reviewer 2 please insert information after the meeting)