Grant Review Committee Assessment Guide
Grant Review Committee Assessment Guide
Role of the GRC:
The GRC reviews all grant applications using standardized review tools and follows up with applicants with committee decisions by established notification dates of the granting year.
GRC Membership:
The GRC will consist of the following individuals:
• Amgen Medical Director
• CANNT President and President Elect of the granting year
• CANNT Vice-President, Technology of the granting year
• Doctorate level nephrology Nurse
Review Process:
Each member of the GRC will review applications based on outlined criteria. Written comments will be limited to 1000 characters. The GRC considers the following criteria when evaluating applications and proposals:
Significance - The potential to build on existing knowledge that will improve nephrology nursing practice, education or patient care.
Research Quality - This includes clarity of the rationale, hypotheses and objectives, strengths and weaknesses of the experimental design and feasibility of project completion.
Applicant Qualifications - Demonstrated support for (via written reference) or experience that predicts successful completion of the project.
Budget - feasibility of project completion within proposed budget
Ratings
All criteria will be rated according to the following descriptors:
7 – Outstanding, Highest National Quality
Significance: The planned work addresses an issue of utmost importance in nephrology nursing. It has publication potential in a peer reviewed journal. It will be published in a high quality nephrology journal and will be the subject of plenary/oral presentations at nephrology symposia. The work is highly innovative and introduces advances in concepts.
Research Quality: The proposal is lucid in its objectives, exemplary in design and certain to be accomplished.
Professional Qualifications: Applications in this category have demonstrated research experience that predicts successful completion of the project. Applicants are a recognized expert in the field of nephrology nursing.
6 – Highly Competitive
Significance: The planned work addresses an issue of high importance in nephrology nursing. It has the potential to be peer reviewed. It will be published in a high quality nephrology journal and will be the subject of plenary/oral presentations at nephrology symposia. The work is innovative with respect to the question being addressed and the approach to it.
Research Quality: The proposal has clarity of purpose and a near-flawless design. There is a high probability of successful accomplishment.
Professional Qualifications: The applicants have a recognized record of achievement in their field of expertise.
5 – Excellent
Significance: The planned work addresses an issue of considerable importance in nephrology nursing. It has the potential to be peer reviewed. It will be published in a high quality nephrology journal and will be the subject of plenary/oral presentations at nephrology symposia. The work contains at least one innovative idea.
Research Quality: The proposal has clarity of design, and any reservations are minor and unlikely to prevent successful outcome.
Professional Qualifications: The applicants have a record of achievement, relative to opportunity. One or more of the applicants have presented work at previous nephrology nursing meetings.
4 – Good
Significance. The planned work addresses an issue of some importance in nephrology nursing. It has the potential to be published in a nephrology journal. The work may have some unique aspects and expand on existing knowledge. There are minor concerns about successful completion.
Research Quality: The proposal is sound, but has several areas of minor concern in experimental design or feasibility.
Professional Qualifications: The applicants have a solid record of achievement.
3 – Satisfactory
This category includes all applications which, budgetary restrictions aside, are fundable, based on a satisfactory approach and design. The GRC will be confident that the applicants will be able to undertake the research. However, on balance the application is one that is not competitive to overall submission.
2 – Marginal
These applications display a number of good features but are not competitive and have not addressed key selection criteria.
1 – Poor
Unfundable applications