Assessment Criteria and Rating a Grant Application

Funds >> Health and Medical Research Fund >> Research Grant Review System >> Assessment Criteria and Rating a Grant Application

Assessment Criteria and Rating a Grant Application

Assessment Criteria

Applications will undergo two-tier peer review process and be assessed according to the following criteria –

Health and medical research projects

Originality of the research topic
Relevance to the scope of funding and thematic priorities
Significance of the research question
Quality of scientific content
Credibility for study design and method
Feasibility of the intended project
Research ethics
Translational potential/value
Past performance and track records of applicants
Research capacity of administering institution
Justification of requested budget
Value for money

Health promotion projects

Relevance to the scope of funding and thematic priorities
Innovation and potential impact in response to the health needs of the target local community
Scientific evidence of effectiveness of the proposed health promotion activities
Feasibility of the proposal
Evaluation plan of programme effectiveness
Track records of applicants and the administering institution
Cross-sector collaboration, in particular collaboration between non-governmental organisations and tertiary institutions
Justification of requested budget
Sustainability of the programme
Potential to build community capacity in health promotion
Value for money

The Research Council may at its absolute discretion invite non-local experts to participate in the second-tier peer review.

Rating a Grant Application

A score ranging from 4 (Recommended for support) to 1 (Not supported) will be assigned by the referees to indicate the scientific merit under each heading in the Referee's Assessment Form. The overall rating for each application will be discussed and finalised in the Grant Review Board meeting. The overall rating is defined as follows:

Health and medical research projects

4 - Recommended for support

Nil or very minor issues to address only

3 - Recommended for support subject to clarifications/ amendments

Minor revision and clarification required for a successful delivery

2 - Not recommended for support at present

Major revision required for significant improvement

1 - Not supported

Minimal impact on research / flaw in methodology/ incomplete application/ out of scope of the fund

Out of scope

Out of scope of the fund