|
|
Recommendations to Authors Based on Lessons Learned from Reviewing 2003 DIGIT and ECAT RFP Submissions
From our experiences in
assessing the submissions received in response to the 2003 Request
for Proposals for both the ECAT and DIGIT programs, it became clear
that some authors had more experience than others in writing grant
applications for submission in a competitive scientific review
process. The following are some of the problems we observed and we
strongly recommend that authors take these recommendations into
consideration when they prepare their proposals. These
recommendations are only guidelines to assist in writing
pre-proposals and make no guarantee of success. However if the
recommendations are not followed the probability of proceeding from
the pre-proposal to the full proposal phase will be reduced.
- Be sure you have explicitly addressed the topics listed in the RFP
Some
of the submissions we received in the 2003 RFP call failed because
they did not explicitly address the topics listed. GBIF's funding
is very limited and only proposals that explicitly answer the topics
mentioned in the RFP will be considered for funding under the 2004
RFP program. To be successful pre-proposals must explicitly
address the topics listed in the RFP and include as significant
element(s) one or more of the additional components(s) that are
listed.
- Concise description of outcome (product) and selected methodology
Some
of the 2003 submissions did not clearly describe the proposed outcome
(product) of their project or the methodologies that would be used to
produce this product. This made it very difficult for reviewers to
compare between proposals. Pre-proposals that concisely and
clearly describe the proposed outcome (product) of their project and
the methodologies that will be used to produce this product are
easier to review and are more likely to be successful.
- Proposals with missing information or information that is not requested will seldom be successful
In
some of the 2003 submissions, requested information was missing and
in other cases, extensive information was included that had not been
requested. If information was missing it was impossible for the
reviewers to score the proposals for these sections and if
non-requested information was included it made it difficult for the
reviewers to find and score the requested information. In both of
these cases, it made it more difficult for the reviewers to compare
between proposals. Proposals that explicitly followed the
instructions for preparation and submission were much easier to
review and probably received higher scores.
- Information for assessing the cost effectiveness of proposals is essential
One
of the most important criteria for the review panel is cost
effectiveness of the use of the seed money. In 2003, many proposals
did not clearly describe the coverage and predicted size of the
proposed data set. This made it difficult to calculate estimated cost
per record and assess the cost effectiveness of the project.
Pre-proposals that concisely and clearly provide comparative metrics
as listed in the RFP will be easier to review and will have a
competitive advantage compared to other proposals.
- Clear commitment to make data freely available though GBIF
From
the 2003 review, it appeared the some authors had attempted to
re-package planned or on-going work to match the criteria of the RFP.
This is fine if there is a good match but unless the new proposal
meets all the criteria outlined there is little chance of their being
funded.
As existing projects were often planned without aiming
directly at GBIF priorities, this was particularly apparent for the
sections on supporting the requirement to make the data freely
available using recommended GBIF standards. The addition of precision
estimates for geo-referencing and distributed information system
technologies are relatively recent innovations that would often not
be addressed in these project descriptions. Only pre-proposals
that explicitly demonstrate a commitment to making data freely
available using the recommended GBIF standards and architectures are
likely to be successful
- Only submit your proposal to the e-mail address mentioned in the RFP
In
2003, a number of proposals were submitted to various GBIF email
addresses in addition to the email address listed in the RFP.
This caused un-necessary confusion. In 2004, only submissions sent
to the email address listed in each RFP will be accepted.
|
