Pilot Grant Review Criteria for Academic Applications

Significance

  • Does the project address an important agricultural health and safety problem or a critical barrier to the prevention of illness or injury of agricultural workers?
  • If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, academic technical capability, and/or agricultural health and safety practice be improved?
  • How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, services, or preventive interventions that drive this field?

Investigator(s)

  • Are the PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project?
  • If Early Stage or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training?
  • If established, have they demonstrated a record of accomplishments that have advanced the field?

Innovation

  • Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or agricultural health and safety practice paradigms by using novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions?

Approach

  • Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses methods well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project?
  • Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented?
  • If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed?
  • If the project involves human subjects research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

Environment

  • Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the likelihood of success?
  • Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed?
  • Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

Additional Review Considerations

  • Is the budget and time to completion justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed project?
  • Does the proposal have the potential for future extramural funding?
  • Does the proposal promote the collaboration of researchers in the nine-state region?
  • Does the investigator have plans to disseminate the results and the continued reporting of related work?
  • Does the proposal include letters of support from named collaborating individuals and/or organizations?