What are Weak, Good and Very Good as rated by Supervisors or Reviewers while reviewing your proposal?

In-Brief

• Two-stage document review is conducted in the review method by all reviewers.
• Each member of the review panel will be necessary to provide the strengths and weaknesses in written form with reference to the assessment criterion.

Introduction

Inquiring the proposal excellently and qualitatively is a dive into the unknown one. The researcher is not seeking a blank check from the funding organization, but it’s a big deal of notion and preparation will be conducted in preparing the proposal. It also means that sufficient differences are obvious in a qualitative proposal that it is unacceptable and iniquitous to use the criterion that is quantitative for assessing qualitative proposals. When assessing a qualitative proposal, the committee that is reviewing the proposal must lay the maximum influence on the proposed idea and on the skill of the reviewer, viewing the features of the proposal as supporting proof of the reviewer’s ability and feasibility of the project.

Criterion for Assessment

The proposed criterion is based on the three dimensions like relevance, rigor, and feasibility. Relevance means the potential role of the research, the importance of the research question proposed, and the possible contribution of the results to the field and in general to social science. Rigor means competence and aptness of the method to deal with the proposed questions and the solidarity of the research design. Feasibility means the skill of the researcher to carry out the research with the available and requested resources within the time allotted for the project, and proof of access to the settings and users with ethical concerns for defending the rights of human subjects. Otherwise, feasibility means the possibility that the project will be concluded as mentioned.

Scoring System and Procedure

The reliable scoring of the proposals is encouraged by the implementation of the scoring system. Examiners who allot high ratings to all proposals have the reduced capability of communicating the methodical impact of an individual submission. Therefore, reviewers should carefully think about the guidance on the rating mentioned below to progress the consistency of the scores as well as the skill of communicating the methodical impact of the proposals that have been reviewed.

Stages of reviews

Two-stage document review is conducted in the review method by all reviewers. Here, the research proposals are reviewed by the same reviewer over two stages by document review instead of using the panel review method. In the first stage of the review process, an overall rating is allotted to every research proposal in four grades based on qualified assessment. Additionally, to unveil the results from the first stage of the review process to those who were not approved and wish to unveil, they will further make an absolute assessment on individual rating scores in relation to the research contents, etc. In the absolute assessment done for each rating factor, if 2 are assigned which means somewhat insufficient or 1 is assigned which means insufficient, then they will make a decision on why it was reviewed as somewhat insufficient or insufficient for either point of the rating factor. In the second stage of the review method, the same reviewer who reviewed the first stage will assign a new score on the relevant research proposal based on the result of the derived from the first stage review process. At that time, verify the comments provided by the reviewers in the first stage, etc., and of all the reviewers who are assessing the same research proposal, and then allot a score based on their own insight. The approval of research proposals and the provision of expenses for research will be decided based on that allotted score.

Impact Is a Function of Significance and Likelihood

The overall impact score in the peer review method is based on the primary outcome, reflecting the judgment of the reviewers on two broad concepts: significance and likelihood.

1. Significance – The importance and novelty of the research problem, its capability to move forward the limit of knowledge.

2. Likelihood- the ability of each individual as a principal investigator has the ability to achieve their ends, as assessed by their experimental design, the proficiency of their team, and the resources at the clearance to execute the research. Significance and likelihood together form impact. It also helps to bear in mind about these relationships using this simple rule: Impact = Function (significance, likelihood).

Each member of the review panel will be necessary to provide the strengths and weaknesses in written form with reference to the assessment criterion. The strengths and weaknesses will form as a foundation for assigning a numerical value to the applications. The strength of the proposal is its feature that when compared to the declared assessment criterion, emerges to influence completely the possibility of the successful accomplishment of the probable economic assistance agreement. A weakness of the application is its aspect that when compared to the declared assessment criterion, emerges to negatively influence the possibility of successful accomplishment of the potential economic assistance agreement. The chairperson of the merit review panel might schedule a consensus review meeting following the completion of individual merit reviews, and then organize the improvement of the strengths and weaknesses of the consent and its scores.

Conclusion

The qualitative proposal must be weighed according to the traits of the reviewer, their suggestion, and the proposed method to analyze the research problem. The committee must be convinced over the proposal that the researcher is skilled, that the research is valuable of funding, and that the research methods will enable the researcher to deal with the problem. Additionally, reviewers are more concerned about principles and that no damage results from the research. It is the responsibility of the researcher to prepare a convincing yet balanced, comprehensive proposal within the limit of the guidelines of the review panel. It is the liability of the review panel to provide a proficient, convincing, and a fair review. The review panel must identify that the review guidelines are exact, then they will not be utilizable for all types of research; if guidelines for review are general, then the review committee must provide a balanced and fair mix of proficiency within the membership of the review committee to provide the necessary review.