Download Proposal Review Criteria: Project Description, Relevance, Methods and Feasibility and more Lecture notes Philosophy in PDF only on Docsity!
REVIEWER UIN: ______________
Criteria Exceptional
Above Average
Average
Needs Improvement
Points
Earned
Project
Description
Description is clear, concise, and easy to understand. The proposed project contains original, innovative, or creative aspect(s).
Description depicts the project well, but uses some jargon or is otherwise hard to understand. Project contains original, innovative, or creative aspect(s).
Description does not explain project concisely, or it does not give a general picture of the proposed activities. The project contains no or few original, innovative, or creative aspect(s).
Description is hard to understand, verbose, or utilizes a lot of field- specific jargon. It is not clear that the project is creative or innovative.
Comments
Goals and Products
The goals of the project are clearly stated. Significant products are described (e.g. presentations at regional or national conferences, publications in peer- reviewed journals, participation in a juried show, submission of a grant proposal, etc.).
The goals of the project are somewhat stated. Products of moderate impact and value are described, such as presentations at the local level, or publications through peer reviewed sources.
The goals of the project are not clearly stated. Products described are of minimal impact. Publication in non peer reviewed sources, participation in non- juried shows, or presentations to local community partners.
The goals of the project are not clearly stated. No products are described.
REVIEWER UIN: ______________
Criteria Exceptional
Above Average
Average
Needs Improvement
Points
Earned
Relevant Background
Provides a clear and thorough introduction and background.
Provides an introduction and background that is only somewhat significant to the research project
Provides an introduction and background that is insignificant to the research project
Introduction and/or background not provided.
Comments
Significance It is clear how the proposed activities fit into the broader scholarly or creative field at the local, regional, or national level. Others will benefit from the new knowledge, applications, or creative works produced through the project; the proposed project impact extends beyond one particular field of study.
It is clear how the proposed activities fit into the broader scholarly or creative field at the local, regional, or national level. The impact on the outside community is modest.
A link is made between the proposed work and the broader creative or research field. It is not clear how the proposed activities will further the field as a whole, or how the community, scholarly partners or other stakeholders will benefit from the proposed activities.
The contributions of the proposed activities to the broader community or field are not clearly stated. Alternatively, the proposed project will not impact the broader community or scholarly field.
REVIEWER UIN: ______________
Criteria Exceptional
Above Average
Average
Needs Improvement
Points
Earned
Budget (^) Budget is calculated correctly, aligned with plan of project/ reasonable, is adequate and realistic. Budget narrative is clear, persuasive, and follows budget format. Contributions from other funding partners are clearly shown, if applicable, and explained.
Budget is clearly explained but most items are not appropriate for the activities proposed.
Budget is some what explained but contains some items that do not align with the proposed plan and that are not appropriate for the activities proposed.
Budget is not clearly explained and/or it is not appropriate for the activities proposed.
Comments
Recommendations
for Investigator
Total Possible Points /
