Review Process

The Office of Research Development (ORD) at FAU manages limited submissions for the university. Limited submissions occur when a sponsoring agency restricts the number of proposals that an institution can submit. For further details on limited submissions, see https://www.fau.edu/research-admin/research-development/limited-submissions-overview/.

Below is the process that the ORD follows when conducting reviews of internal applications for limited submissions.

  • Each year the ORD disseminates a request for volunteers to participate on the office’s advisory panel. ORD contacts associate deans for research and institute directors and asks them to nominate or seek interest from faculty members from within their colleges/institutes to serve on the advisory panel. The time period for an advisory panel is from May 1 to April 30 each year. There is no limit to the number of volunteers who can participate from each college/institute on the panel.
  • When the number of FAU applications for a limited submission exceeds a sponsoring agency’s institutional limit prior to the internal deadline, ORD will reach out to members of the advisory panel to review internal applications. Most internal (Florida Atlantic) deadlines for limited submission applications occur 45 days prior to the agency deadline (for some highly-competitive internal competitions, the deadline is 60 days); again, see here for further details on timing.
  • Our general process is to assign two reviewers from the advisory panel to evaluate each internal application, drawn from the colleges represented in the application pool. For example, for a given funding opportunity, if ORD receives applications from faculty members in the College of Business and College of Engineering & Computer Science, ORD tries to have one advisory panel reviewer from each, review applications. Reviewers independently evaluate applications (i.e., they do not discuss applications or know each other’s identities).
  • We strive to provide one week for reviewers to complete their reviews. However, there may be instances, due to availability, when it may take the reviewers longer than one week. ORD will update tickets to let applicants know that reviews are underway. ORD will subsequently communicate any delays in the process, if necessary.
  • ORD develops a reviewer form for each competition. The items on the reviewer form are based on the related funding opportunity’s criteria. The scoring scale for each criterion is 1 - Excellent; 2 - Very Good; 3 - Good; 4 - Fair; 5 - Poor.
  • Our office cautions reviewers that project descriptions for internal applications are limited to two pages and that scoring should take into account the page limitation. Review criteria may not be fully addressed as it would in a full proposal. Evaluations should be based on the text that has been provided.
  • Reviewers are provided with a link to the funding opportunity for that competition.
  • Reviewers are asked to disclose, prior to conducting a review, if they have a conflict of interest in reviewing assigned applications. (Examples of conflict of interest: planning to be a collaborator on the project or members of the same lab). If they do have a conflict of interest, they cannot review related applications.
  • Reviewer forms also offer space for reviewers to provide comments on applications, although it is optional and reviewers do not always provide comments. ORD advises reviewers that de-identified comments will be shared with applicants, if provided, but comments can be marked as confidential by reviewers if they do not want them to be shared.
  • Slots will be allocated to applicants according to lowest total review score (see scoring scale above) and max number of applications allowed by the funding opportunity. In the case of a tie, comments will be taken into account to break the tie.
  • After reviews have been completed, ORD will update tickets to inform applicants if they have or have not been allocated a slot for that opportunity, based on review scores.
  • ORD will then email scores and comments to applicants who did not receive a slot and email any comments that might strengthen applications to those who did receive a slot. If reviewers did not provide comments, or marked them as confidential, no comments will be sent. Further, to protect confidentiality, ORD will not share reviewers’ identities with applicants under any circumstances.
  • Infrequently, there may be instances in which ORD will need to deviate from the above outlined processes, either due to lack of reviewer availability or compressed sponsoring agency deadlines, for example. However, those deviations will only be pursued after careful consideration and in consultation with Division of Research leadership.