Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to serve as a reviewer for the UFHCI Pilot and Exploratory Study grant program. Pilot and exploratory studies proposals (PESPs) supported by UFHCI are important in stimulating transdisciplinary collaboration in the UFHCI research programs, a metric of success for an NCI-designated cancer center.
The goals of the UFHCI PESPs are to 1) provide developmental support for promising, cancer-focused collaborative research projects with a well-defined objective; 2) promote new transdisciplinary research initiatives addressing a need within the catchment area, including interventional clinical studies; and, 3) create synergy and collaborations between cancer researchers that will lead to impactful publications and applications for federal or other peer-reviewed funding. The PESPs allows investigators to collect preliminary data required to test novel and risky ideas, leading to subsequent extramural grant applications.
Responsibilities of a Reviewer
As a Peer Reviewer, you are an expert in a scientific or technical field related to the grant application(s) to which you are assigned. Your role is to provide expert advice on the scientific and technical merit of the applications.
Your Responsibilities Include:
- Reading your review instructions and applications
- Alerting the research program leaders or review committee chairperson and the UFHCI Office of Research Administration if assignments do not fit your expertise or you identify a conflict of interest
- Writing preliminary critiques, using and completing all sections of the critique template, and returning to the UFHCI Office of Research Administration by the deadline
- Participating in the review meeting: listening to presentations of assigned reviewers, contributing as appropriate to the discussion, and providing final scores
- If assigned designated as the 1st reviewer for an application, presenting a brief synopsis of the application to the review committee to begin discussions
- Maintaining confidentiality of the review proceedings, before, during, and after the meeting
Reviewing Applications
Pre-Review:
- Examine your review assignments, review materials [including Request for Applications and applications], and instructions.
- Review all applications pending review in the meeting for conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest. If you perceive a conflict or have questions regarding a conflict, contact the research program leaders or review committee chairperson.
- Review your application assignments for match with your expertise. If you have questions regarding your assignment to an application, contact the research program leaders or review committee chairperson.
Written Critiques:
- Read and evaluate each assigned application.
- Use the link provided by the UFHCI Office of Research Administration to score your review.
- The final comment should reflect a balanced evaluation, acknowledging strengths while offering constructive feedback for improvement.
- When finished, submit the completed review sheet to the UFHCI Office of Research Administration.
Scoring:
- The UFHCI uses a scoring system with 5 criteria, scoring between 1-10. 1 being best, 10 being worst.
- Each questions response is weighted and calculated to obtain an overall average.
- It is expected that scores of 1 or 10 be used less frequently than the other scores.
- 5 is considered an average score.
- Select one of the overview options provided to best describe the application being reviewed.
- See the Scoring System and Procedure section for more information.
- Score an application as presented in its entirety. You may not modify your scores on the assumption that a portion of the work proposed will be deleted or modified according to the review committee’s recommendation
Review Criteria and Considerations:
Each application is evaluated for scientific and technical merit according to the scored review criteria and additional review criteria stated in the FOA.
1. Scored Review Criteria:
- Consider each of the scored review criteria in the determination of scientific and technical merit and give a separate score for each of the following six scored review criteria: Scientific Quality, Innovation, Strategic Fit, Catchment Area Impact, and Likelihood of Future Funding
- In evaluating the Investigator(s)review criterion, focus on the qualifications and expertise of the members of the research team for the work proposed, including the personal statement in each Biosketch.
2. Overview:
- Select one of the six choices to best provide your overview of the proposal.
3. Provide a paragraph:
- Limited to 850 characters summarizing the factors that informed your assessment of the application. This paragraph should be an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses outlined for each of the six scored criteria and additional review criteria.
4. Additional Review Criteria:
- When applicable, consider the additional review criteria in the determination of scientific and technical merit and your comments and Overview assessment.
- Separate scores will not be given for these items.
Meeting Activities
For the in person (or virtual) final review, each reviewer will have a chance to present their review to the committee made up of their peers. The following is the order of events and the guidelines to be followed for each UFHCI pilot review.
The UFHCI will review the top scoring proposals in random order of application (eg., 1-5). The following guidelines will be repeated for each proposal.
Proposal Presentation and Scoring:
- 1st reviewer will present the reviewed proposal to the entire review committee. Followed by an explanation, using scientific merit justifying the score granted.
- 2nd review will follow
- 3rd reviewer (if applicable) will follow
- The floor will be open for questions and discussion from the review committee in whole.
- Completion of the discussion, will result in original reviewers (1st, 2nd, 3rd (if applicable)) to review their score and make final scoring decision
- Scores can be moved up/down based on discussion
- Scores can also remain the same
- The original reviewer scores will set the ‘range’ for the committee in whole, to score the proposal
- (e.g., 1-3, 3-5, 2-4)
- Each committee member will verbally score the presented proposal with a final Overall score to be averaged among all present reviewers.
- IF a reviewer feels led, based on scientific merit to score outside the pre-set scoring range, they may do so, following a scientific justification.
- The Overall score average will determine the proposals that will be discussed by leadership as potential funding.
- The Overall funding decision will be made by UFHCC leadership.
Scoring System and Procedure
Summary:
The UFHCI uses a 10-point scale for individual review criteria:
- Using whole numbers only.
- A score of 1 is best and 10 is worst
Final overall score is based on an average score:
- Scientific Quality (30%)
- Innovation (20%)
- Strategic Fit (20%)
- Catchment Area Impact (20%)
- Likelihood of Future Funding (10%)
Scoring:
Scientific Quality
- 30% of the overall score
- How well designed are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses to accomplish the specific aims of the project? How well have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?
Innovation
- 20% of overall score
- How well does the application utilize novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions to challenge and seek to shift current research paradigms, clinical practices, or public policies surrounding cancer?
Strategic Fit
- 20% of overall score
- How well does the project align with the vision, mission, and strategic plan for the UF Health Cancer Center?
Catchment Area Impact
- 20% of overall score
- How well does the proposed project address a need within our catchment area?
Likelihood of Future Funding
- 10% of overall score
- How likely is the proposed study to lead to the development of a competitive external, peer-reviewed application?
Overview
- Choose from one of the six sections
- The proposal is scientifically or technically flawed
- The proposal does not meet one or more review critter, or is a request for funding outside the scope of the UF Health Cancer Center
- The proposal meets all review criteria but with clear weaknesses
- The proposal is good and meets all review criteria but with minor weaknesses
- The proposal is strong and broadly meets all review criteria
- The proposal is very strong and fully meets all review criteria
Reviewer Comments
- Enter a maximum of 850 characters
- Outline the factors that contribute to the scores
Reviewer Guidance:
- The table below provides a guide for reviewers in assigning individual criterion scores
- Each review criterion should be assessed based on the strength of that criterion in the context of the work being proposed
- The overall score is based on a weighted average of the five scored criteria
- A score of 5 is a good, medium-impact application.
- The entire scale (10 – 1) should always be considered.
For questions please contact the UFHCI Office of Research Administration at researchadmin@cancer.ufl.edu.
UF Health Cancer Center Pilot and Exploratory Study Proposal Peer Review Guide 02/2026
