91原创

• These guidelines supersede previous versions.   

• Proposals must include all components in the order listed below. Incomplete proposals or those that do not follow the guidelines will be withdrawn from funding consideration. 

• Proposals must be submitted as a PDF though the . 

• Questions concerning proposal preparation should be directed to the Office of Research and Grants.  

Assemble the PDF in the following order (note page limits): 

1. Cover Page 
   Complete . Signatures of Principal Investigator, Co-Investigators and Department Chair are required. By signing, the Department Chair acknowledges their support for the project.
2. Approach/Research Plan/RSAC Support Rationale (2-page limit, single-spaced)
   Explain how you will address each concern raised by the reviewers and how you will use these funds to address reviewer鈥檚 concerns. Describe how RSAC funding will make your proposal more competitive for external funding. Also describe why RSAC funding is required and why this work cannot be funded from Research Incentives, Startup, Institute, or other funding sources. References may be provided in an optional 2-page appendix.
3. Project Timeline and Milestones 
   Include a detailed project timeline and milestones, including the planned date of resubmission of the proposal to the external funding agency. Include time for IRB/IACUC/IBC approval processes and subject/patient enrollment in the timeline, if applicable. A Gantt chart, or similar, is acceptable.
4. Detailed Budget and Justification
   Complete the and include a budget justification for each expense. Refer to the RSAC Budget Form for information on Allowable and Unallowable Costs and Budget Justification. 
5. Appendix
   Additional details may include: 
   1. Original External Proposal 
   2. Summary Statement from the External Review (including panel鈥檚 critiques) 
   3. Bibliography (if applicable) 
   4. Documentation of regulatory approvals (IRB/IACUC/IBC/RSC Approvals, etc., if applicable). Proof of submission may be used if approval is pending.  

As part of the peer review, all applications: 

• Will be assessed on the likelihood of success of extramural support for the proposed project. 
• Will receive a written critique. 

In addition to standing RSAC members, ad hoc intramural content experts may be invited to join to review the grant application and make decisions on the likelihood of funding of a revised version, feasibility of necessary revisions and the amount of required support. The PI may recommend potential internal expert reviewers. Final funding recommendations will be made to the Associate Dean for Research and Innovation by RSAC, taking into consideration the availability of funds. At the conclusion of the review process, PI and Co-Investigators are encouraged to discuss the outcome with the RSAC Chair and the Associate Dean for Research and Innovation jointly.  

Review Criteria
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below and give a separate rating for each.  

Proposal Details 

• Are the concerns by reviewers adequately addressed? 
• Is there a clear rationale describing why RSAC funds are needed, and this project cannot be completed using research incentive, start-up, institute, and other sources of funding? 
• Is there a clear and reasonable project timeline with appropriate milestones? 
• Is the budget reasonable and are the costs clearly justified?