Reviewers should score proposals according to the following criteria: Reviews should be returned within 1 week.
1. Impact of the research (score 3 = high impact; 2 = moderate impact; 1 = low impact; 0 = not worthy of Instruct support; where impact score = 1, add +1 if request is for single technology platform access: threshold=2/3)
In many cases, the work proposed will be part of an existing experimental project which has been scientifically peer-reviewed by an external national or international funding body. It is not the intention of Instruct to duplicate this review process. However, an evaluation of the impact of the proposed work will help to prioritise proposals in cases where platform capacity or funding might be limited.
2. Field and scope of research (score 1= suitable field of study; 0 = not suitable for Instruct: threshold = 1/1)
The subject category of the proposal should fall within structural cell biology. This may include some functional work that may or may not be undertaken at an Instruct Centre. The proposals may be of two types:
- Single access proposal - requests access for a single experiment to a single platform facility which is unavailable in the proposer’s national facilities.
- Integrated access proposal – proposes a project involving an integrated experimental approach with more than 2 technology platforms requested for access. These proposals may span several months and include some flexibility in planning the order and scale of platform access.
The work proposed should have elements that are ambitious and innovative or tackle difficult problems with a fresh approach. Routine service access is not normally acceptable.
3. Preliminary data and Plan B (score 3 = good preliminary data available and plan B in place; score 2 = some further data needed, plan B in place; score 1 = some further data needed and no plan B; score 0 = data not provided or not sufficient: threshold = 2/3 [either score 2 or 1+1 for single access])
Proposals should contain sufficient preliminary data to show that the experimental work is feasible: e.g. that material is of sufficient quality and quantity for requested technologies; that there is data supporting the scientific approach; that there are no safety or ethical issues preventing access.
Where a multi-platform project is proposed, some flexibility in the approach to take account of poor outcome should be included. The Reviewer should make a judgement about whether the nominated platform location(s) is optimal for the objectives and may offer advice on other choices.
4. Strengths and weaknesses (score 1 = balance on strengths; score 0 = balance on weaknesses: threshold = 1/1)
The strengths and weaknesses of the proposal should be evaluated, including a judgement on whether the platforms requested are optimal for achieving the best experimental outcome. Suggestions on other platforms or approaches may be made.
Maximum score = 8
Threshold score for acceptance = 6
Revision required = scores 3-5
Rejected = scores 0-2
The Moderator will make both the scores and the reviewers' comments available to the proposer when feedback on the decision is given.
Appeals: If the proposer wishes to appeal the decision from the Moderator, he/she must contact the Moderator directly in the first instance and explain the reasons for appeal. The Moderator will decide whether the decision can be revised without referral back to the reviewers or whether it requires referral to reviewers and/or the Access Committee. The Moderator (who may delegate this to the Secretary) will keep the proposer informed of the process and outcome of the appeal.
Reporting: After approval, the Secretary will facilitate the access process to each platform, ensuring that the funding options are clear. Access reports must be logged via the website by the proposer after completion of the work at each platform; these will also be monitored by the Secretary and non-completion will preclude the proposer from further approval for access to Instruct infrastructure.
Help: Moderators and Reviewers may contact admin@instruct-eric.org for help with the on-line review process. Specifically, Moderator or Reviewer may wish to take advice from the requested platform(s) about technical feasibility of the work proposed. This can be done directly (bearing in mind issues of confidentiality of the proposed work) or through the Secretary.
