The Utah Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS) accepts research proposals for pre-submission peer review three times per year as noted in the table below. The program accepts proposals from investigators conducting research at any point along the translational science spectrum aiming to improve the health of individuals and the public. NIH review criteria will be used to score each submission. Proposals will be assigned at least two reviewers (potentially three).
Rigorous grant review prior to the submission of a proposal to a funding agency is an essential component of successful applications. The goal of the CCTS Peer Grant Review program is to provide useful pre-submission feedback regarding the proposal’s strengths and weaknesses in order to aid the investigator in submitting the strongest application possible. Each research proposal will receive a thorough and impartial review by at least one reviewer. Proposals will be scored independently using the NIH review criteria. Investigators will be provided reviews within 30 days after submission, allowing for adequate time to incorporate reviewer comments into their final agency submission.
Program's Positive Impact
Since its establishment, the CCTS Peer Grant Review program's positive impact increases. More and more researchers are receiving the benefit of pre-merit review, as their below quotes reflect:
"I think this was incredibly helpful. In particular, this review by folks not actively involved with my research or even previously aware of my proposal allowed me to see what kinds of questions and concerns NIH reviewers may have. I've incorporated nearly every suggestion and plan to submit the grant later this month. I also re-worked one section that was obviously too confusing. Thank you all for this!"
"Reviewers were thoughtful, constructive and well versed in my area of investigation. Careful review of my preliminary proposal in context for the specific RFA was especially helpful. As an early career investigator, I feel this is one of the most effective mentoring strategies in CCTS. Thank you for this opportunity and please convey my appreciation to the reviewers."
"I would like to thank the CCTS Peer Grant Review (PGR) Program and my anonymous reviewers for their feedback on my grant and biosketch! As a junior investigator, the PGR Program has helped me gain a much better understanding of the grant writing process. Thanks for everything!"
"This is a tremendously valuable service. We received very constructive and useful feedback on our draft proposal. Thanks to the reviewers and staff who make this possible."
All investigators conducting research at any point along the research spectrum are eligible to submit their research proposal for pre-submission peer review. At minimum, investigators must submit their NIH Biographical Sketch, Specific Aims, Research Strategy, and Bibliography & References Cited. For enhanced feedback for the overall proposal, it is highly advisable to also include ancillary items as outlined in the guidance checklists. Additionally, if the proposal is for a career development award, the investigator is required to submit the Candidate Sections (see Career Award Guidance Checklist). The program particularly welcomes proposals that investigators previously submitted to a funding agency, reviewed but not awarded, and are being prepared for resubmission. Resubmission proposals must include any agency reviews (i.e., “pink sheets,” summary statement, etc.).
Investigators are required, via email, to submit a) the completed CCTS Peer Grant Review Face Page form; b) their NIH Biographical Sketch, Specific Aims, Research Strategy, and Bibliography & References Cited as word documents; and c) any other appropriate ancillary documents as a single PDF (see R Guidance Checklists and K Guidance Checklists) to Sarah Elliott (email@example.com) no later than the application deadline listed below.