Review of FGP Applications

Evaluation Criteria

The following criteria will be used to evaluate projects:

  1. Significance of the proposed activity for—and impact of the proposed activity on—the faculty member, department, college/school, university, and discipline;
  2. Capability of the investigators; technical soundness of the proposal (where applicable); adequacy of institutional resources (available to the investigators) to support the proposed activity;
  3. Demonstrated commitment to and potential for seeking and securing external support for the next stage of the proposed scholarly or creative/artistic activity in the near future, where applicable;
  4. Originality, innovation, novelty and creativity of the proposed activity;
  5. Appropriateness and adequacy of the proposed budget to support the scholarly or creative/artistic activity;
  6. Fit to one or more of the thematic areas identified by the Research & Graduate Education TaskForce in 2003 as key areas of opportunity for the university: bioscience and health, environment and sustainability, human culture and diversity, teaching and learning. For a discussion of the RGE Task Force recommendations, see http://nau.edu/Research/Research-Graduate-Education-Task-Force-Report/.

Review Committee

The FGP Review Committee comprises three faculty members from each college and one member from Cline Library. Staff members from the Office of the Vice President for Research organize and facilitate the review meetings, but do not rate, rank, or score proposals.

Review Process

The FGP Review Committee members attend an orientation in which the program guidelines and criteria for evaluating proposals are discussed. Reviewers will be given guidance in accessing and using the FGP on‐line system for their review of proposals.

Each proposal will receive three reviews and will be ranked both according to their merits and on the criteria based on need as described under the Priorities for Funding section. The reviews will be discussed at the full committee meeting for each grant type and placed into categories according to funding priority. This discussion is summarized and the written summary is provided to the applicant at the end of the review and decision‐making process.

Funding decisions are announced on or before February 1.