Letter of Intent
The following criteria (point values in parenthesis) will be used by the disciplinary reviewer in evaluating LOI. Please refer to the criteria and point values below as a guide for the preparation of the NIA LOI. A reviewer may utilize continuous whole numbers when scoring each criterion. Example: If a reviewer determines the Objectives to be between “Excellent” and “Satisfactory,” a score of 4 points may be given.
Criteria
Each criterion will be rated on a five-point scale, with that rating multiplied as indicated to arrive at the final criterion score.
- Objectives (10 points maximum)
- Aims (15 points maximum)
- Outcomes – Impact on research field (10 points maximum)
- Outcomes - Contribution to career (15 points maximum)
Objectives
Multiply point rating by two to determine final criterion score.
- Excellent (5 points): Objectives, such as a testable hypothesis, novel design, new technology, specific problem to be solved or critical barrier to be addressed, are well-defined and appropriate.
- Satisfactory (3 points): Objectives are not clearly defined and/or are not clearly appropriate.
- Needs Improvement (1 point): Objectives are minimally defined or are not appropriate.
- Omitted (0 points): Objectives are not defined or not stated.
Aims
Multiply point rating by three to determine final criterion score.
- Excellent (5 points): The aims are clearly linked to and appropriate for the objectives proposed.
- Satisfactory (3 points): The aims are provided but are not clearly linked to the objectives proposed OR are not clearly appropriate for the objectives proposed.
- Needs Improvement (1 point): Aims are provided but are not linked to AND inappropriate for the objectives proposed.
- Omitted (0 points): Aims are not provided.
Outcomes – Impact on research field
Multiply point rating by two to determine final criterion score.
- Excellent (5 points): The research proposed is likely to contribute to the generation of significant future research.
- Satisfactory (3 points): The research proposed has the potential to be used as preliminary data for more substantial research in the same area.
- Needs Improvement (1 point): The research proposed is unlikely to contribute to the generation of future research.
- Omitted (0 points): Project outcomes not stated.
Outcomes – Contribution to career
Multiply point rating by three to determine final criterion score.
- Excellent (5 points): Relevance of the project in relation to past and future scholarship interests of the applicant is clearly stated.
- Satisfactory (3 points): Relevance of the project in relation to past and/or future research interests of the applicant is briefly addressed.
- Needs Improvement (1 point): Relevance of the project in relation to the applicant's past and future research interests is unclear.
- Omitted (0 points): The relevance to the applicant’s career is not provided.
Selection of LOI for Full Proposal Submission
After evaluation of LOI by disciplinary reviewers, top scoring LOI will be considered by the NIA Review Committee, which will determine the LOI which will be invited to submit full proposals using scores and reviewer comments. Consideration will also be given to the disciplinary mix of invited applications, and preference may be given to LOI concerning research fields not otherwise represented in the application pool. Note: COS Board Members will have final discretion to invite full applications based on recommendations of the full NIA Review Committee.
Full Proposal - Phase 1
The following criteria (point values in parenthesis) will be used by the disciplinary review panels in evaluating applications. Please refer to the criteria and point values below below as a guide for the preparation of NIA application. A reviewer may utilize continuous whole numbers when scoring each criterion. Example: If a reviewer determines the Nature of the Project to be between “Excellent” and “Satisfactory,” a score of 4 points may be given.
Criteria
Each criterion will be rated on a five-point scale, with that rating multiplied as indicated to arrive at the final criterion score.
- Nature of Project (5 points maximum)
- Specific Aims (15 points maximum)
- Significance of the Project (15 points maximum)
- Methods I: Methods to Be Used in the Study (20 points maximum)
- Methods II: Data Analysis and Interpretation (15 points maximum)
- Timeline (5 points maximum)
- Contribution to Career (15 points maximum)
- Budget Justification (10 points maximum)
Nature of Project
- Excellent (5 points): Provides a clear, concise, and thorough background, structure, and scope of the project.
- Satisfactory (3 points): Provides partial background, structure, and scope of the project.
- Needs Improvement (1 point): Provides minimal background, structure, and scope.
- Omitted (0 points): Background, structure, and scope not provided.
Specific Aims
Multiply point rating by three to determine final criterion score.
- Excellent (5 points): Goals are defined and appropriate. Objectives, such as a testable hypothesis, novel design, new technology, specific problem to be solved or critical barrier to be addressed, are well-defined and appropriate.
- Satisfactory (3 points): A majority of goals are defined, appropriate and testable.
- Needs Improvement (1 point): A minority of goals are defined, appropriate and testable.
- Omitted (0 points): Goals are inappropriate and/or untestable.
Significance of the Project
Multiply point rating by three to determine final criterion score.
- Excellent (5 points): The research proposed is likely to add significantly to the current relevant literature with a stated plan to disseminate the results and contribute to the generation of future research.
- Satisfactory (3 points): The research proposed has the potential to be used as preliminary data for more substantial research in the same area and a stated plan for result dissemination.
- Needs Improvement (1 point): The research proposed is unlikely to add to the body of evidence that currently exists in the field and is unlikely to be widely disseminated.
- Omitted (0 points): Project significance not stated and has no plan for dissemination of results.
Methods I: Methods to Be Used in the Study
Multiply point rating by four to determine final criterion score.
- Excellent (5 points): Provides a clear explanation of appropriate methods and are appropriate for testing the study hypothesis. They are sound and workable within the one-year time frame including sufficient collaborative support when needed. There is adequate recognition and discussion of the limitations.
- Satisfactory (3 points): Provides adequate explanation of methods. There is room for improvement with the proposed research techniques. Limitations have not been properly considered.
- Needs Improvement (1 point): Provides an unorganized explanation of poor methods. It is unlikely the methods will produce the proposed data.
- Omitted (0 points): Methods not provided or inappropriate for goals or objectives.
Methods II: Data Analysis and Interpretation
Multiply point rating by three to determine final criterion score.
- Excellent (5 points): Provides clear evidence the Principal Investigator can efficiently evaluate the data with proper statistical measures.
- Satisfactory (3 points): Provides adequate evidence the Principal Investigator can evaluate the data, statistics are appropriate and limitations of data have been considered.
- Needs Improvement (1 point): Unclear if the Principal Investigator can evaluate the data appropriately.
- Omitted (0 points): Data analysis methods not provided.
Timeline
- Excellent (5 points): The project is appropriate for a one-year time frame.
- Satisfactory (3 points): The project is appropriate for a one-year time frame but requires modification to ensure timeline is met.
- Needs Improvement (1 point): Questionable project for completion within one-year time frame, requires significant modification to meet timeline.
- Omitted (0 points): The project is not appropriate for a one-year time frame.
Contribution to Career
Multiply point rating by three to determine final criterion score.
- Excellent (5 points): Purpose of the project is clearly stated in relation to past and future scholarship interests of the applicant and will assist in future grant proposals.
- Satisfactory (3 points): Purpose of the project is vaguely stated in relation to past and/or future research interests of the applicant but will assist in future grant proposals.
- Needs Improvement (1 point): Purpose of the project is unclear in relation to the applicant's past and future research interests.
- Omitted (0 points): The contribution to the applicant’s career is not provided.
Budget Justification
Multiply point rating by two to determine final criterion score.
- Excellent (5 points): The salary, equipment, and supply items requested in the budget are consistent and justified by the proposed methods.
- Satisfactory (3 points): The salary, equipment, and supply items requested are consistent but not justified by the proposed methods.
- Needs Improvement (1 point): The salary, equipment and supply items requested are not justified by the proposed methods.
- Omitted (0 points): Justification for budget not stated.
Full Proposal - Phase 2
After evaluation of proposals by disciplinary review panels, top scoring proposals from each disciplinary section are compared to each other using scores and reviewer comments from Phase 1. The NIA Review Committee will provide an overall impact score based on a modified NIH 9-point scale:
- 1 = Exceptional (Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses)
- 2 = Outstanding (Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses)
- 3 = Excellent (Very strong with only some minor weaknesses)
- 4 = Very Good (Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses)
- 5 = Good (Strong but with at least one moderate weakness)
The NIA scoring system differs from NIH in a few ways:
- Scores ranging from 6-9, representing satisfactory or low impact proposals, are not used. This is because proposals that would score in this range are not brought forward from Phase 1 for further consideration.
- Proposals are scored by members of the NIA Review Committee to one decimal place (e.g. 2.2). Immediately prior to scoring a proposal, the Review Committee agrees to a half-point range (e.g., 1.0-1.5, 1.6-2.0, 2.1-2.5, etc.) from which individual scores are submitted.
- If a disciplinary section puts forward multiple proposals for consideration, no more than two may have the same score range.
Top scoring proposals in this phase will be recommended for funding. Note: COS Administrative Board Members will have final discretion to assign awards based on recommendations of the full NIA Review Committee.