gulf research program - nationalacademies.org filegulf research program thriving communities grants...

Gulf Research Program

Thriving Communities Grants 5

Full Proposal Merit Review Rubric

Outstanding

(5 pts)

Good

(4 pts)

Adequate

(3 pts)

Improvement Needed

(2 pts)

Major Deficiencies

(1 pt)Weight

The research

question(s) is/are

thorough, well‐

reasoned, and clearly

relevant to

understanding

interactions between

attributes and systems

that characterize

coastal communities in

the Gulf region.

The research

question(s) is/are

appropriately well‐

reasoned and

relevant to

understanding


attributes and

systems that

characterize coastal

communities in the

Gulf region.

The research

question(s) is/are

sufficiently well‐

reasoned and

somewhat relevant to

understanding



that characterize


the Gulf region.

The research

question(s) is/are NOT

well‐reasoned or NOT

relevant to

understanding



that characterize


the Gulf region.

Research question(s)

is/are not included.

The project is highly

likely to increase

understanding of how


community attributes

and systems influence

the resilience of Gulf

region coastal

communities.

The project is likely

to increase

understanding of

how interactions

between community

attributes and

systems influence


region coastal

communities.

The project seems

likely to increase






region coastal

communities

The project might

increase






region coastal

communities,

BUT

the extent to which is

unclear.

It is unlikely the

project would increase






region coastal

communities


likely to result in

actionable information

that can improve the

resilience of coastal

communities of the

Gulf region.

The project is

likely to result in

actionable

information that can

improve the


communities of the

Gulf region.

The project seems

likely to result in


that can improve the


communities of the

Gulf region.

The project might

result in actionable

information that can

improve the resilience

of coastal communities

in the Gulf region,

BUT

the extent to which is

unclear.

It is unlikely the

project will result in


that can improve

resilience in coastal

communities of the

Gulf region.

The project team

demonstrates a clear

and thorough

understanding of the

existing state of

knowledge

AND

the proposed project is

highly likely to result

in important

contributions to the

knowledge base.

The project team

demonstrates an

appropriate


existing state of

knowledge

AND

the proposed project

is likely to result in

important

contributions to the

knowledge base.

The project team

demonstrates a

sufficient


existing state of

knowledge

AND

the proposed project

seems likely to result

in contributions to the

knowledge base.

The project team

demonstrates some


existing state of

knowledge,

BUT

it does NOT articulate

how the project would

contribute to the

knowledge base.

The project team lacks

a clear


existing state of

knowledge

AND

the project is unlikely

to contribute to the

knowledge base.

II. Technical and

Scientific Merit

(35%)

Criteria: Is there evidence that the proposed project team understands the current state of knowledge of the issue to be

addressed and how the project would contribute to the knowledge base?

12%

I. Relevance

(25%)

Criteria: Is/Are the research question(s) well‐reasoned and relevant to understanding interactions between attributes

and systems (e.g., social, health, economic, and/or environmental) that characterize coastal communities in the U.S.

Gulf of Mexico region?

9%

Criteria: Will the proposed project increase understanding of how interactions between community attributes and

systems (e.g., social, health, economic, and/or environmental) influence the resilience of Gulf region communities?

8%

Criteria: Will the proposed project result in actionable information that can improve the resilience of coastal

communities in the Gulf region that are affected by coastal stressors associated with climate change, severe weather,

or chronic impacts of environmental degradation?

8%

1

Outstanding

(5 pts)

Good

(4 pts)

Adequate

(3 pts)

Improvement Needed

(2 pts)

Major Deficiencies

(1 pt)Weight

The strategy and how

it would be

implemented is

thorough, clear, and

convincingly feasible.


it would be

implemented is

appropriately

described and

demonstrates

feasibility.


it would be

implemented is

sufficiently described,

BUT

additional details

could be provided to

better demonstrate

feasibility.


it would be

implemented can be

inferred,

BUT

critical details are

lacking to judge

feasibility.


it would be

implemented is not

clear or not feasible

OR

the proposal does NOT

articulate a strategy

for the project or an

implementation plan.

The methods, tools,

and analyses are very

rigorous and clearly

appropriate for

accomplishing the

specific aims of the

project.

The methods, tools,

and analyses are

rigorous and

appropriate for

accomplishing the


project.

The methods, tools,

and analyses seem

sufficiently rigorous

and appropriate for

accomplishing the


project,

BUT

additional details

could be provided to

enhance clarity.

The methods, tools,

and analyses are either

NOT sufficiently

rigorous

OR

NOT appropriate for

accomplishing the


project.

The methods, tools,

and analyses are not

described in sufficient

detail to judge

appropriateness or

rigor.

Yes (0 pts) No (0 pts)

0%

0%

The project directly

and thoroughly

involves leaders,

representatives, or

others from Gulf

region communities

that are affected by

coastal stressors.

The project

appropriately

involves leaders,

representatives, or

others from Gulf

region communities


coastal stressors

The project

involves leaders,

representatives, or

others from Gulf

region communities


coastal stressors,

BUT

the project could be

enhanced by more

thorough involvement.

The project

tangentially involves

leaders,

representatives, or

others from Gulf

region communities


coastal stressors

AND

significantly more

involvement is

needed.

The proposal does

NOT include

involvement of

leaders,

representatives, or

others from Gulf

region communities.


likely to directly

benefit Gulf region

residents.

The project is

likely to directly

benefit Gulf region

residents.

The project seems

likely to directly

benefit Gulf region

residents.

The project might

benefit Gulf region

residents,

BUT

the extent of the

direct benefit is

unclear.

The project will NOT

directly benefit Gulf

region residents.

II. Technical and

Scientific Merit

(35%) (continued)

III. Engagement and

Impact

(25%)

Criteria: Is the budget commensurate with the proposed work?

Criteria: Does the proposed project directly involve leaders, representatives, or others from Gulf region communities

that are affected by coastal stressors?

4%

Criteria: Does the proposed project directly seek to benefit residents of the Gulf region?

3%

Criteria: Does the proposal include a data management plan that is appropriate for the scope of work?

Criteria: Is the strategy for the overall project and its implementation clear and feasible?

11%

Are the proposed methods, tools, and analyses sufficiently rigorous (i.e., could result in a peer reviewed publication)

and appropriate for accomplishing the specific aims of the project?

12%

2

Outstanding (5 pts) Good (4 pts) Adequate (3 pts) Improvement Needed

(2 pts)

Major Deficiencies

(1 pt)Weight

The project team is

highly integrative and

includes a compelling

mix of perspectives

from diverse

institutions, sectors,

and disciplines

AND

partners outside of

academia would be

highly engaged

throughout the

project, NOT just at

the inception or

dissemination phases.

The project team is

integrative and

includes an

appropriate mix of

perspectives from

diverse institutions,

sectors, and

disciplines

AND

partners outside of

academia would be

engaged in

appropriate phases

of the project, NOT

just at the inception

or dissemination

phases.

The project team

includes a sufficient

mix of perspectives

from diverse

institutions, sectors,

and disciplines

AND

partners outside of

academia would be

engaged in some

phases of the project,

BUT

the project could be

enhanced either by

adding additional

perspectives or by

increasing the level of

engagement.

The project team is

missing critical

perspectives

OR

partners outside of

academia would NOT

be engaged

throughout the

project (e.g., only

engaged in inception

or dissemination

phases).

The project team is

missing critical

perspectives

AND

partners outside of

academia would NOT

be engaged

throughout the

project (e.g., only in

inception or

dissemination phases)

OR

NOT enough

information is

provided to assess.

The proposal clearly

and convincingly

describes how the

project would improve

information exchange

between researchers

and those involved in

implementing

resilience policies and

practices.

The proposal

appropriately

describes how the

project would

improve information

exchange between

researchers and

those involved in

implementing

resilience policies

and practices.

The proposal

sufficiently

describes how the



between researchers


implementing


practices.

The proposal vaguely

describes how the



between researchers


implementing


practices.

The proposal does

NOT describe how the

project would advance


between researchers


implementing


practices.

The proposal clearly

and convincingly

addresses all

questions with robust

and satisfactory detail.

The LOI

appropriately

addresses all

questions with

satisfactory detail.

The proposal

sufficiently addresses

all questions,

BUT

the detail or clarity of

the information could

be improved upon.

The proposal

addresses only two of

the three questions.

The proposal

addresses only one or

none of the three

questions.

Exceptionally well

qualified.Well qualified. Sufficiently qualified.

Somewhat qualified,

BUT

missing some

important

qualifications.

Not qualified.

III. Engagement and

Impact

(25%) (continued)

IV. Project Personnel

and Organizational

Supports

(15%)

Relative to the stage of career, how well qualified are the project director and other project personnel, if applicable, to

conduct the proposed activities?

8%

Criteria: Is the proposed project team integrative? In other words, does it include an appropriate mix of perspectives

from diverse institutions, sectors, and disciplines, and are partners outside of academia engaged throughout the

project, not just in the inception or dissemination phases?

6%

Criteria: Does the proposed project seek to improve information exchange between researchers and those involved in

implementing resilience practices or policies?

6%

Criteria: Does the proposal satisfactorily address:

• What actionable information will result from the project?

• Who may put the information into action?

• What the expected outcomes and impacts of putting the information into action will be?

6%

3

Outstanding (5 pts) Good (4 pts) Adequate (3 pts) Improvement Needed

(2 pts)

Major Deficiencies

(1 pt)Weight

There is clear and

convincing

evidence that the

team would have

access to all of the

resources needed to

conduct the proposed

project.

There is appropriate

evidence that the

team would have

access to all of the

resources needed to

conduct the

proposed project.

There is sufficient

evidence that the

team would likely

have access to all

critical resources,

BUT

evidence of access to

some resources

needed to conduct the

proposed project is

unclear.

There is insufficient

evidence that the

team would have

access to all critical

resources needed to


project.

The proposal does NOT

provide sufficient

information to judge

whether the team

would have access to

resources needed to


project.

Yes (0 pts) No (0 pts)

0%

IV. Project Personnel

and Organizational

Supports

(15%) (continued)

7%

Is there evidence that the project team will have access to the resources needed (e.g., engaged partners, institutional

support, equipment, data, models, technologies) to conduct the proposed project?

Criteria: Will the project benefit from unique features of the applicant organization, project team, or any collaborative

arrangements?

4

gulf research program - nationalacademies.org filegulf research program thriving communities grants...

Documents