Advocate Reviewer Guidelines
Heading 1
with a request body that specifies how to map the columns of your import file to the associated CRM properties in HubSpot.... In the request JSON, define the import file details, including mapping the spreadsheet's columns to HubSpot data. Your request JSON should include the following fields:... entry for each column.
Heading 1
with a request body that specifies how to map the columns of your import file to the associated CRM properties in HubSpot.... In the request JSON, define the import file details, including mapping the spreadsheet's columns to HubSpot data. Your request JSON should include the following fields:... entry for each column.
Advocate reviewers are selected based on their advocacy experience and general knowledge of Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS). Their role is to provide the community perspective—not to evaluate the scientific merit of a proposal. Scientific merit is assessed separately by expert scientific reviewers.
As an advocate reviewer, you will evaluate how well a proposal addresses the needs and priorities of the PWS community and how closely its goals align with the Foundation for Prader-Willi Research's mission: to eliminate the challenges of PWS through the advancement of research and therapeutic development.
Because grant applications contain confidential and unpublished information, all reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process. To protect the integrity and confidentiality of the review, the use of artificial intelligence (AI), large language models (LLMs), or similar tools (including ChatGPT) to assist with proposal reviews is strictly prohibited.
If you have any questions regarding advocate reviews, please contact caroline@fpwr.org.
Advocate Review Evaluation Criteria
Below are some questions to keep in mind as you review the proposal and evaluate each of the review criteria. Please use evaluative statements about the strengths and weaknesses of the application.
For the purposes of Advocate Reviewing, please assume that the science is sound, and note that you are not expected to perform outside research to review this application. The scientific reviewers are responsible for evaluating the feasibility, experimental design, and technical aspects of the proposal. Please base your answers on your own experiences and how you believe the PWS community would view this research.
1. Strengths and Weaknesses:
Briefly summarize the major strengths and weaknesses of the proposed research, emphasizing those areas you feel are most relevant for the application and to the PWS community.
2. Significance and Impact:
Do you believe the proposed studies address a problem not previously addressed or insufficiently addressed in PWS research? What will be the effect of this study on the PWS community? Are the research objectives important to the PWS community?
3. Research Team:
Looking at the biosketches in the application, do you believe the research team is well-suited to carry out PWS research?
4. Concerns:
Please list any concerns that you see with the budget and ethical approvals for research with animal models/humans (as appropriate).
5. Lay Abstract:
Please rate the quality of the lay abstract in explaining the proposed research to non-scientists and potential impact to the PWS community (Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor). Provide feedback for improving the lay abstract as needed.
Give an overall score based on the following scoring system:
1= exceptional; 2=outstanding; 3=excellent; 4=very good; 5=good;
6=satisfactory; 7=fair; 8=marginal; 9= poor