Glossary Term Name
This is a placeholder for glossary term definitions.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS I RESEARCH & TRAINING GRANTS I PROGRAM PROJECT GRANTS I CLINICAL INVESTIGATION GRANTS I CONFIDENTIALITY & CONFLICTS OF INTEREST POLICIES
General Instructions
The JDRF grant review process is unique. As an organization founded by the parents of children with Type 1 diabetes, our research review process includes and indeed emphasizes full participation by lay reviewers. Further, our research decision-making is driven by an informed assessment of how the research being proposed is responsive to the needs of people with Type 1 diabetes and whether or not it proposes cogent approaches to solving specific Type 1 diabetes related scientific and clinical problems. New applications undergo pre-review (triage) by two scientific and at least one lay reviewer. Those applications judged by pre-review to be fitting the JDRF mission and scientifically competitive will be selected for final review, an extensive evaluation by three scientific reviewers (primary and secondary reviewers and a reader), as well as the LRC (lay review committee). Solicited, revised applications are not subjected to triage.
For all assigned applications, briefly address the potential for:
Reviewers are responsible for familiarizing themselves with the research goals and priorities of JDRF, writing formal critiques of the research proposals assigned to them, and leading the peer review discussion at the study section meeting. The applicant receives a summary of the review group discussion and recommendations (written by the JDRF Research Staff) and the deidentified written critiques from the primary, secondary, and reader reviewers.
Primary Reviewer
The primary reviewer should provide an in-depth, written review of the research proposal and assign a single, global score to the application (see Score Guide below). In general primary reviews should not exceed 1000 words, our experience showing that being direct and to the point is the most effective means to provide useful feedback to grant proponents. The review should be organized as follows:
1. Overall Critique - a general statement (no more than one paragraph) outlining the reviewers overall evaluation of the application;
2. Specific evaluation of the application in each of the seven review criteria areas described below.
Secondary Reviewer
The secondary reviewer should provide a written critique including: 1) a brief overall critique; 2) an evaluation based on the seven review criteria described below; and 3) a single, global score to the application. The critique should not normally exceed 500 words.
Reader
The reader should be familiar with the application and assign a single global score to it. The reader should provide a paragraph summarizing their recommendations. In addition, the reader should be prepared to help reconcile differences between the primary and secondary reviewers, at the time of the study section discussion of the grant proposal.
Critiques
Critiques should be written in such a way that they can be transmitted to the applicant without significant revisions. This expedites the review process and is a great help to the JDRF scientific staff who must otherwise edit the critiques. To facilitate this process the reviewers are asked to adhere to the following suggestions when writing their critiques:
1. Use the recommended structure, clearly separating comments under the appropriate subheadings (i.e., Significance, Approach, etc.)
2. Check spelling, use complete sentences and use consistent abbreviations.
3. Remember one purpose of review is to provide constructive feedback to the grant proponent. Therefore, please maintain a professional tone and avoid any comments that might be construed as offensive by the applicant. Please be tactful and, when in doubt, omit a comment. Reviewers are encouraged to share, separately, any and all concerns with staff and representatives of the LRC.
4. Do not include your name or a numerical score in the electronic critique.
Note: All reviewers should provide written critiques (via the proposalCentral web site) prior to the review.
Review Context and Criteria
As an organization founded and led by people personally affected by diabetes the context for our research funding decision making is very personal, and our intent is clear - we wish to fund those projects which will potentially have the greatest impact on accelerating progress along the path from discovery to cure. In some cases, where the fundamental science is poorly understood or long standing beliefs are coming under question, this may require funding basic work that is very speculative or high risk or unconventional. In other cases, where the science is more mature, this may require funding the direct testing of a clinically plausible intervention, or a technology driven descriptive study for therapeutic targets and candidates. Essentially, what we want to do most is do what is necessary to make a real difference - perhaps the critical difference -- re: delivering a cure to our loved-ones.
As background, then, for conducting their reviews we ask reviewers to first try to put themselves in the frame of mind of a parent who has just been told that their child has type 1 diabetes, and then to use their scientific expertise and awareness of the relevant fields to answer the question: "what would I do, today, or want to see done to ensure that we have the best chance of finding a cure, as soon as possible?"
At the minimum each proposed project should ask a specific and substantive question of high relevance to achieving the JDRF mission of finding a cure for type 1 diabetes and its complications, and should discuss how positive or negative results would lead to a specific potential new therapeutic or relevant experimental approach.
In the above context, the following criteria should be used in deciding the priority score to be assigned to an application:
1. Significance: Does this study address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that drive this field?
2. Approach: Are the conceptual framework, design, methods and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?
3. Innovation: Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches or methods? Are the aims original and innovative? Does the project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies?
4. Investigator(s): Is/are the investigator(s) appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator(s) and other researchers (if any)?
5. Environment: Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed experiments take advantage of unique features of the scientific environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?
6. Relevance: How relevant is the work to the goals of JDRF, i.e. to target research at finding a cure for type 1 diabetes and its complications?
7. Budget: Budgetary and overlap concerns, if any, should be addressed in a specific manner. For instance, "The budget is appropriate" or "Delete $x,xxx for equipment" or "Justify need for four technicians", etc., are acceptable comments"
Scoring Guide
1.0 - 1.4 Outstanding Highest priority for funding if deemed appropriate by the
Lay Review Committee (LRC)
1.5 - 1.9 Excellent Fund if deemed appropriate by the LRC
2.0 - 2.4 Good Above average--worthy of serious consideration by the
LRC if funds are available
2.5 - 2.9 Average May not be funded unless considered of particular
merit by the LRC
3.0 - 3.4 Fair Below average--unlikely to be funded
3.5 - 3.9 Acceptable Unlikely to be funded
4.0 - 5.0 Unacceptable Considered the weakest
Note: Budget is not a scoring criterion for regular grants.
