Guidelines for Reviewers
Please consider the strengths and weaknesses of the various aspects of the proposal. It is important to justify your answers. The more detailed the review the more weight the panel will give to your evaluation. The average review length is between 1.5-2 pages.
In your response please relate to the following points:
- Importance of the problem
- Feasibility of the objectives
- Soundness of the hypothesis
- Scientific and/or technological innovations
- Quality of the research plan and methodology
- Nature and quality of collaboration
- Anticipated Benefit to Agriculture and/or the Environment.
- Suitability of the investigators
- Other comments
Instructions for Ratings:
In addition to your comments we ask that you score the proposal in the following categories according to the scale below:
| Scientific Merit | Excellent | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | poor |
| Probability of Success | High | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | low |
| Quality of collaboration | High | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | low |
| Anticipated Benefit to Agriculture and/or the Environment | High | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | low |
| Support Recommendation | High | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | low |
The reviewer agrees to respect the confidentiality of the proposers including refraining from uploading any content from proposals, review information and related records to generative AI tools.
