Proposal Management

Proposal Management

Proposal Guidelines

A yearly call for proposals will be made throughout the University approximately five months prior to the deadline for their receipt. The announcement is distributed to all Diabetes Center members, the Dean's Office, the Office of the Associate Dean for Research, to all new faculty, and all department chairpersons for posting on the departmental bulletin boards. In addition, the call for proposals is sent by e-mail to all faculty in the School of Medicine (over 600 full-time members), as well as the Departments of Biology and Chemistry of the College of Arts and Science (>70 full-time faculty) and the School of Engineering (>100 full-time faculty). It will also be placed on the DERC web page.

The guidelines for the proposals are as follows:

  1. The proposed studies should be designed to evaluate a clearly articulated hypothesis
  2. The proposals should address a topic of importance to a clinical and/or scientific question related to diabetes or related areas of endocrinology;
  3. The proposal should be no longer than 10 pages in length not including the author's biographical sketch, funding history, budget and letters of support;
  4. The proposal should be in the NIH format; 5) Proposals must, if relevant, have approval by the University of Virginia Animal and/or Human Studies Committees prior to being submitted to external review. (Sample of Guidelines given to Applicants - See Appendix 1 in P/F Section).

Proposal Review

Investigators wishing to submit a proposal are requested to contact the chairman of the P/F Committee (Dr. T. McCall) to discuss the nature and format of the proposal. During this meeting the chair can advise the investigator on the general guidelines for the proposal and, if necessary, suggest additional consultation with local investigators so that the proposal can be strengthened. Upon receipt, all proposals will be forwarded to Dr. Robert Abbott (DERC Statistical Consultant). He reviews each proposal to evaluate experimental design and statistical methods. If significant problems are noted they will be discussed with the applicant and if need be the proposal revised.

The Chair will then send proposals to members of the Review Committee. This committee will include at least one external reviewer, chosen based on expertise in the area covered by the application. The entire committee is asked to review all proposal, but a primary and secondary review are assigned and asked to provide written comments. If a UVA faculty committee member is assigned a proposal which falls outside their expertise, expert review is sought from the university faculty at large or, if needed, from a second outside reviewer. The primary and secondary reviewers each prepare written critiques. External reviewers will be compensated $200.00, for their contribution to the review process.

We anticipate having 6-8 applications per year for review. We anticipate that the ~ $1,400 annually for the costs of the review will be covered within the budgetary allocation for the Administrative Core program.

One month after assigning proposals for review, the P/F Committee will meet to review the proposals. The proposals will be evaluated on scientific merit, experimental approach, potential for successful completion, relevance to diabetes/endocrinology, potential for a significant contribution to the field and likelihood for eventual external funding. During the review meeting the proposal will be outlined and critiqued by a primary reader on the committee and this individual will summarize the written comments from external reviewers. This is followed by discussion by all members. The proposal will then be given a number score (1-5. NIH scoring), based upon the scoring by the individual reviewers and the discussions of the proposal, recommendations from the P/F Committee are made to the Executive Committee for further action.

Following the return of the proposals from the outside reviewers the P/F Committee will meet to discuss the critiques in the context of the funding situation and the "in-house" review. From these discussions a recommendation for funding will be given to the Executive Committee for final consideration. (Time Table for P/F Funding)

Ongoing Review

Six months after receiving funding each P/F investigator must submit a short written statement of their progress. The P/F committee will review these whereby a decision is made whether to continue the funding for the full one year. At the end of a one year period each investigator is required to submit a more detailed progress report which include manuscripts submitted (or in preparation) as well as future funding possibilities. Those investigators requesting additional funding for year two will be required to submit a proposal stating the rationale for extended funding and outline the potential benefits to the investigator and the DERC the extension will provide.

In circumstances where there is a question regarding the appropriateness of additional funding, the applicant may be invited to meet with the entire committee. The committee will submit its recommendations for extension to the Executive Committee for their consideration.