Project Review Committee Scoring Guide

Polar Continental Shelf Program Project Review Committee Scoring Guide [PDF] 417 Kb

 

The PCSP Project Review Committee (PRC) reviews and evaluates logistics requests submitted to the PCSP from university applicants. The review process is based on the PRC Scoring Guide, which includes four criteria: feasibility of the requested logistics; quality of the application; scientific recognition of the applicant; and student and local community involvement and engagement. For more information regarding the PCSP’s review process for university applicants, please contact the PCSP.

 

Polar Continental Shelf Program Project Review Committee Scoring Guide
  0 1 2 3
Feasibility of requested field logistics (Weight: 40)
Health and safety - Field team has insufficient training/experience in Arctic field work - Health and safety deficiencies must be addressed in order for project to be feasible - Health and safety deficiencies must be addressed in order for project to be feasible  - Field team well-trained and experienced in Arctic field work.
Location and logistics sharing - Study area not feasible (i.e., aircraft not available or aircraft cost too high) - Study area has limited aircraft resources and limited sharing abilities with other groups OR
- Project is feasible only with aircraft sharing
- Study area has aircraft resources available - Field work is based at the PCSP Resolute facility and aircraft resources are available
- No option of sharing aircraft is available - Aircraft sharing opportunities are available - Good aircraft sharing opportunities
Field planning - Field plans are not well-contemplated, not detailed, have significant information gaps, or are not provided - Field plans are reasonably thought-out and somewhat detailed, but contain information gaps - Field plan requirements are clear and quite detailed and contain minimal information gaps - Field plan requirements are well-thought-out, detailed, and very clear
- Field methodology is poorly described - Field methodology is adequately described - Field methodology is clearly described - Field methodology is clearly described
Budget - Budget not well-contemplated, contains no or unrealistic cost estimates and/or has substantial information gaps - Budget not well-contemplated, includes some  unrealistic cost estimates, and/or has some information gaps - Budget well-contemplated, most costs estimates are realistic, and no information gaps exist  - Comprehensive and well-contemplated budget with realistic cost estimates
Quality of application (Weight: 25)
  - Difficult to understand and disorganized with substantial information gaps - Somewhat difficult to understand and disorganized with information gaps - Intelligible and organized with few information gaps - Well-written, organized and comprehensive
- Proposed research project description and research objectives are unclear - Proposed research project description is adequately described and research objectives are reasonably clear - Proposed research project description and research objectives are clearly described - Proposed research project description is well-described and research objectives are clear and strong
Scientific recognition (Weight: 20)
Awards and grants - Awards/ grants are not from a competitive process that evaluates scientific excellence OR
- No awards/grants secured
-  Some awards/grants are from a competitive process that evaluates scientific excellence -  Some awards/grants are from a competitive process that evaluates scientific excellence - Many awards/grants are from a competitive process that evaluates scientific excellence
  - Number of awards/grants and/or their monetary value and/or prestige is low - Number of awards/grants and/or their monetary value and/or their prestige is moderate - Number of awards/grants and/or their monetary value and/or their prestige is high
  -  Key awards/grants are pending - Some key awards/grants are secured  - Most or all key awards/grants are secured
Publications record - Publications are very limited for the discipline or the publications are not relevant to the proposed research project - Publications are limited for the discipline and the papers listed are in low impact journals - Publications are reasonable for the discipline and some of the papers listed are in higher impact journals. - Publications are extensive for the discipline and include many papers in high-impact journals.
- Most publications are not relevant to the proposed research project - Most publications are relevant to the proposed research project  - Publications are relevant to the proposed research project
Students, local involvement and engagement (Weight: 15)
  - No student or local involvement - Only one student or local person involved in a somewhat meaningful way - Students and/or local people are meaningfully involved - High level of meaningful student and/or local involvement
  - No explanation provided for lack of involvement - Research plans for the student (if applicable) are described adequately OR
- Acceptable explanation provided for the limited student or local involvement
- Research plans for students (if applicable) are clearly described OR
- Good explanation provided for limited student or local involvement
- Research plans for students (if applicable) are clearly described
  - No demonstrated engagement activities or planned activities with a local community -  A high level of meaningful engagement with a local community
    - Limited engagement activities or planned activities with a local community - Meaningful engagement activities or planned activities with a local community