Reviewer Guidelines: Mini-ARTS Grants

This award provides funding for taxonomic studies and is open to all career stages. For proposals submitted to this program, we work to find enough reviewers so that each proposals is evaluated by 3 people. Reviewers are all asked to identify conflicts of interest based on titles and applicant namest. We suggest that reviewers use their best judgement when identifying conflicts-of-interest. 

​Reviewers are sent 5-9 proposals and asked to complete online-evaluation forms for each of the applications assigned to review in the system. They are asked to give constructive feedback that will be sent to the applicants and hopefully help them improve their work and/or application for future funding opportunities. We have also designed a rubric to help rank proposals here. Questions to bear in mind while reviewing are:

1. Do the efforts described in the proposal fit the intended objectives of the Mini-ARTS program?
   
2. Will the proposed activities effectively address the applicant's stated goals?
   
3. Please provide any additional comments about the merits of the proposal or other constructive feedback for the applicant.
   
4. Please rate this proposal on the following scale: fair, good, very good, or excellent.
   

In their evaluation, reviewers are also given an opportunity to provide additional confidential comments that are only read by the SSB Awards Committee. After all proposal reviews have been submitted, the Awards Committee reads each one to ensure that all proposals have been appropriately reviewed. Then, the award recipients are selected from the proposals with the overall highest reviewer ratings.

Contact

If you have any questions or comments for the Awards Committee about this process, please email the SSB Awards Director (​awards@systematicbiologists.org).