ADVOCATE REVIEWER GUIDELINES

Advocate reviewers will be selected based on prior experience in advocacy and general knowledge of PWS.  They will evaluate the relevance of the proposal to the concerns of the PWS community.  The advocates will evaluate the goals of the proposal with respect to the mission of the Foundation for Prader-Willi Research: to eliminate the challenges of PWS through the advancement of research. Reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the applications.

 

ADVOCATE REVIEW EVALUATION CRITERIA

Below are some questions to keep in your mind as you review the proposal and evaluate each of the review criteria.  Please use evaluative statements about strengths and weaknesses of the application. 

For the purposes of Advocate Reviewing, please assume that the science is sound.  The scientific reviewers are responsible for evaluating the feasibility, experimental design and technical aspects of the proposal.

 

SIGNIFICANCE AND RELEVANCE:  Does the proposed study address an important problem in Prader-Willi syndrome research?  How will the successful completion of the proposed studies advance our understanding of Prader-Willi syndrome and/or lead to the goal of developing effective therapies to treat PWS?   What will be the effect of this study on the PWS community?

 

INNOVATION: Do the proposed studies address a problem not previously addressed or insufficiently addressed in PWS research?  Are the aims of the study innovative and original?  Do the proposed studies use novel concepts, approaches or methods? Will completion of the studies open up a new area of investigation, develop a new therapy, or provide novel insight?

 

RESEARCH PLAN:  Will successful completion of the proposed specific aims of the project adequately address the research problem as stated by the investigator?  Is a clear plan presented to complete the specific aims?  Are the research objectives important to the PWS community?

 

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:  Does the PI show a commitment to PWS research, or will the PI bring new expertise into PWS research? Is the PI qualified to do the research and/or has the PI assembled a research team capable of completing the proposed studies?

 

OVERALL EVALUATION:  Briefly summarize the major strengths and weaknesses of the application in terms of the review criteria, emphasizing those areas you feel are most relevant for this particular application.  Note that the weight of the different criterion may differ between applications – some studies may not be highly innovative, but are nevertheless critically important; other studies may be high risk, but are highly innovative with the potential for a significant advancement.

 

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

 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:  As appropriate, please comment on these other aspects of the application:

  • Are animal studies justified and appropriately reviewed by the contracting institution?
  • Are human subject studies justified?  Have such studies been appropriately reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board?  Does it seem likely that individuals and families of those with PWS will agree to take part in the studies proposed? Are potential risks adequately addressed?
  • Is the budget appropriate for the proposed studies?  Is the study duration appropriate?