Instructions for Proposal Review

Please provide detailed comments on the quality of this proposal with respect to each of the two criteria below, noting specifically the proposal's strengths and weaknesses. As guidance, a list of potential considerations that you might employ in your evaluation follow each criterion. These are suggestions and not all will apply to any given proposal. Please comment on only those that are relevant to this proposal and for which you feel qualified to make a judgment.

(modified from review criteria for the National Science Foundation)

Criterion 1. What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
Potential considerations: How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields?  To what extent is the proposed activity creative and original? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to the necessary resources?

Criterion 2. What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
Potential considerations: What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?  Specifically, how will the proposal further efforts in conservation and management?

Please provide an overall rating of the proposal as “Excellent”, “Very Good”, “Good”, “Fair”, or “Poor”.  The reviews are intended to be anonymous.  Submit two copies of the review, one that is anonymous and attached to the paper, and the other, with your name on it, to Dr. Haddad, by the beginning of class on Nov. 26.

Your Obligation to Keep Proposals Confidential
The Foundation receives proposals in confidence and protects the confidentiality of their contents. For this reason, you must not copy, quote, or otherwise use or disclose to anyone any material from any proposal you are asked to review. Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information could subject you to administrative sanctions.

Fairness and objectivity
If the proposal is flawed, criticize the science, not the scientist. Harsh words in a review will cause the reader to doubt your objectivity; as a result, your criticisms will be rejected, even if they are correct! Comments directed to the author should convince the author that (1) you have read the entire proposal carefully, (2) your criticisms are objective and correct, are not merely differences of opinion, and are intended to help the author improve his or her proposal, and (3) you are qualified to provide an expert opinion about the research described in this proposal. If you fail to win the author's respect and appreciation, much of your effort will have been wasted.