|
Assessment
Criteria
Referee's
Assessment
External reviewers are invited to be both objective and specific in their critical appraisal of each grant application. Two or more referees, based locally or overseas, are assigned to assess each research proposal to evaluate its scientific merit and research ethics.
| |
Scientific
merit |
| |
- Originality
- Relevance to the fund and thematic priorities
- Significance of the research questions
- Quality of scientific content
- Credibility of design and methods
- Applicability
to local context
|
| |
Research
ethics |
| |
- Has the proposal been reviewed and approved by a recognised ethics committee?
- Are measures in place to ensure the privacy of the study participants and to protect human subjects from research risk?
|
Grant Review Board
After review by the Referee Panel, each proposal will be discussed further, bearing in mind the track record of the principal applicant, the research capacity of the administering institution and the value for money of the proposal. Funding recommendations will be finalised in the Grant Review Board meeting. Summary statements containing questions, comments and/or recommendations will be forwarded to the applicant.
| |
Scientific
merit (see above)
Research ethics (see above) plus |
| |
- Does the study comply with Chapter 340 - Animals (Control of experiments) Ordinance?
|
| |
- Does the study comply with Chapter 486 - Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance?
|
| |
Relevance to the scope of funding |
| |
- Is the topic within the scope of the fund and the thematic priorities?
|
| |
Track
records of the applicants |
| |
- What is the likelihood that the proposed study can be accomplished by the investigators given their documented experience and expertise? Track record includes the applicant's compliance with the terms and conditions of previous awards and records of research output.
|
| |
Research
capacity of the administering institution |
| |
- Research capacity refers to the ability of the administering institution to provide an environment conducive to productive research, in terms of
|
| |
|
~
physical space
~ facilities and equipment
~ qualified research staff
~ qualified support/administrative staff |
The emphasis placed
on each aspect varies between applications, depending on their relative
strengths.
Rating a Grant
Application
A score ranging from 5 (Excellent / High) to 1 (Unacceptable / Low) will be assigned by the referees to indicate the scientific merit under each heading in the Referee's Assessment Form. The overall rating for each application will be discussed and finalised in the Grant Review Board meeting. The overall rating is defined as follows:
| Fundable |
Nil or very minor clarifications / amendments required |
| Potentially fundable |
Minor amendments required |
| Not fundable at present |
Major amendments required |
| Reject |
Irredeemable application on scientific grounds / immature or incomplete application |
| Out of scope |
Out of scope of the fund |
|
|
|