Hi Kavita,
We are similar to the below as well. We consider natural breaks in score, available budget, programmatic priorities, applicant potential to contribute to the field (this extends our consideration beyond an assessment of the proposed research). Further, we have a whole file (holistic) review component to our review as well, particularly for our trainee and student level awards. We almost always have more meritorious proposals than available funds.
We have 20 different award programs so # of awards and $ available as well as funding % vary from program to program.
As a philosophical aside, my observation of study section behaviors seems to demonstrate that this is a far more human and therefore subjective effort than most think. I’ve seen single comments change the direction of the scoring, I’ve seen the same application have significantly different scores when considered within two separate study sections, I’ve seen how “who” is in the room can transform the culture of a study section.
Patricia
|
|
Patricia Frustace (she/her) Senior Director Career Advancement and Population Health Programs Main: 202.776.0544 | Mobile: 202.731.2670 Web: | Email: [email protected] 2021 L Street NW #900, Washington, DC 20036 |
