The PWS Scientific Reviewer will provide a written review evaluating the scientific merit of the proposed research using the criteria listed below. They will also evaluate the appropriateness of the budget, and review animal and human subject use as needed. Reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the applications.

Scientific Peer Review Evaluation Criteria

Please consider the following questions as you develop your review (note – it’s not necessary to answer each question in the review category, they are meant to provide a framework for review).

 

SIGNIFICANCE & INNOVATION:

  • Does the proposed study address an important problem or gap in knowledge in PWS/SYS research? Is the scientific rationale strong?
  • How would the successful completion of the proposed studies create a valuable conceptual or technical advance, produce a needed resource, and/or support the goal of developing effective therapies for PWS/SYS?
  • Does the proposed work incorporate novel concepts or methodologies, or explore new or understudied areas?

RESEARCH STRATEGY (RIGOR & FEASIBILITY):

  • Is the study design scientifically sound and well-developed, with appropriate methods and a robust plan for data analysis and interpretation?
  • As needed, are there supportive preliminary data? (Note: preliminary data are not required but may be included)
  • Are the goals of the study achievable in the timeframe proposed? Are potential problems anticipated, and alternatives proposed?

INVESTIGATOR & RESEARCH TEAM:

  • Is the principal investigator well-qualified to lead the proposed research?
  • If specialized expertise is needed, have appropriate collaborators been established?
  • Is the project sufficiently staffed and are critical resources available to ensure success?

ETHICAL AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS:

  • If animal studies are included, are they scientifically justified? Note: FPWR advises applicants to adhere to the ARRIVE guidelines.
  • If human subject studies are included, are they ethically justified, with risks adequately addressed and protections in place? Is there a recruitment plan in place? Note: FPWR advises applicants to adhere to the CONSORT guidelines.

BUDGET:

  • Is the budget appropriate for the proposed studies?
  • Is there any potential overlap with existing funded projects?

OVERALL EVALUATION: Briefly summarize the key strengths and weaknesses of the application in terms of the review criteria, emphasizing those areas you feel are most relevant for this application. 

Give an overall score based on the following scoring system [see additional information about scoring below]:

1= exceptional; 2=outstanding; 3=excellent; 4=very good; 5=good;
6=satisfactory; 7=fair; 8=marginal; 9= poor


Impact Score Descriptor Additional Guidance on Strengths/Weaknesses

High

1 Exceptional Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses

2 Outstanding Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses

3 Excellent Very strong with only some minor weaknesses

Medium

4 Very Good Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses

5 Good Strong but with at least one moderate weakness

6 Satisfactory Some strengths but also some moderate weaknesses

Low

7 Fair Some strengths but with at least one major weakness

8 Marginal A few strengths and a few major weaknesses

9 Poor Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses