Skip to main content

The CEHS Proposal Review Network

The Office of Research Services provides investigators with an opportunity to have their external grant proposals reviewed by an experienced faculty peer prior to submission.  We have a network of 30 CEHS faculty who have agreed to serve as reviewers, representing all disciplines/departments and experience with both writing and reviewing proposals for various funding agencies.  Reviewers receive compensation from the Office of Research Services and understand that a thorough and substantive review is expected.

 

The proposal peer review is intended to enhance the services provided by the Proposal Development division by working in conjunction with the Proposal Development Specialist and is not a substitute for the comprehensive support offered for the entire proposal development and submission process. 

 

Here’s a brief outline of how the proposal review services work:

 

  1. Investigators will request the review of their proposal via the Proposal Development division of the CEHS Office of Research Services at least SIX WEEKS prior to their submission Email nancy.sassano@usu.edu
  2. When a request is received, an appropriate reviewer will be identified and contacted with the timeline for review. Reviewers may decline an assignment if the timeline is not compatible with their schedule and another reviewer will be approached until one is identified who can complete the review as needed.
  3. The PI must provide a draft of the full proposal narrative and any other materials they would like reviewed at least FOUR WEEKS prior to the submission If the proposal is a resubmission, the PI should also include copies of previous reviews.
  4. The PI and reviewer may determine a timeline for completion of the review, but it will be no later than TWO WEEKS prior to the submission deadline. Reviewers must be given at least 2 weeks to complete a review unless otherwise agreed upon by the PI and reviewer.
  5. The reviewer will provide feedback in the form of tracked changes and comments in a document file as well as narrative feedback according to the review criteria for the solicitation. The intent is to give the PI feedback to strengthen both the content and presentation of the proposal as well as any other input they believe would be helpful.