Review Process

General

Proposals are not reviewed by a committee. Instead, proposals are reviewed individually by leading investigators in each research area or topic. Reviews are conducted anonymously to encourage candid comments. So far, more than 1,800 reviewers from 41 countries have reviewed BMRP proposals. The reviewers do not see each other’s reviews and do not meet to forge a consensus report. Therefore, reviews can be different or even contradictory in some of the opinions or suggestions. The Principal Investigator receives excerpts from the reviewers’ comments that could be helpful in revising or improving the proposal.
Grant and continuation application reviewers are required to sign confidentiality agreements prior to receiving the proposals in order to protect the investigators’ ideas.
Reviewers’ comments are advisory to the BMRP. The final decision on research proposals and their funding is made by the BMRP. Grant proposals are selected for funding based on their scientific strength, innovative value and relevance to IBD diagnosis, therapy or prevention. Preference is given to proposals for work conducted with patients or patient material and with strong potential for clinical applicability in the foreseeable future.
Every attempt is made to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest between the investigators and their reviewers. Principal Investigators are encouraged to inform the BMRP of potential conflicts of interest so that we can avoid them in the review process.
Principal Investigators may suggest the names of potential reviewers. Please provide their complete mailing address, telephone number, fax number, e-mail address and area(s) of expertise.
If you are invited to submit a grant application or a revised proposal, it is up to you to determine the merits of a reviewer’s suggestions. Reviewers may not agree with one other, or they could be incorrect. If you decide not to follow some of the reviewers' suggestions, you should explain your reasons clearly in a separate "response to the reviewers" document. Keep in mind that the investigators who review your application or revised proposal may not be the same as the ones who evaluated your previous submission. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the peer reviewers' comments, we encourage you to contact us.

Letters of Interest

The BMRP will attempt to review Letters of Interest rapidly and will aim to provide a response to investigators within four to six weeks of receipt.
Most but not all Letters of Interest will be peer reviewed. Some proposals may be approved or rejected based on their merits and how closely they meet the BMRP’s objectives.
Reviewers of Letters of Interest are asked to comment on the following items:
     1. scientific strength of the proposal
     2. innovative nature of the ideas
     3. suggestions that would improve the project and its chances of helping patients with IBD

Grant Applications

Peer review of a grant application will begin after the BMRP receives a completed and signed hard copy of the proposal. The BMRP will try to make its decision within two months of its receipt.
Grant application reviewers may not be the same as those who reviewed the original letter of interest. However, we do provide a copy of the letter of interest reviewers’ comments to the grant application reviewers.
     1. Grant reviewers are asked to comment on the following categories:
     2. Is the proposal scientifically sound?
     3. How innovative is this project for IBD research?
     4. Evaluate the research expertise of the investigators.
     5. Strength of support facilities and environment.
     6. Appropriateness of the budget.
     7. Provide suggestions to improve the proposal and its chances of helping patients with IBD.
     8. Overall evaluation.

Continuation Applications

Peer review of a continuation application will begin after receipt of the completed and signed hard copy of the proposal. The BMRP will try to make its decision within two months of receiving a continuation application.
The reviewers of the continuation application may not be the same as those who reviewed the funded grant application. However, we provide a copy of the funded grant proposal to the continuation application reviewers.
Continuation application reviewers are asked to evaluate the following areas:
     1. Evaluate achievements during the currently funded year:
          a.   Has the progress to date been reasonable?
          b.   Has the initial hypothesis been substantiated by the findings?
          c.   Will the findings create significant progress in IBD research?
     2. Evaluate the plan for the next year:
          a.   Is a second year of funding needed in order to obtain longer-term funding from other agencies?
          b.   Is the proposed plan for the next year scientifically sound?
          c.   How innovative is the next year's plan for IBD research?
          d.   Is the proposed budget for the next year appropriate?
          e.   Will the proposed work improve the lives of patients with IBD?
     3. Indicate suggestions for the applicant regarding:
          a.   The progress report.
          b.   The experimental plan for the next year.
     4. If this project was submitted for funding to other sources and evaluated during the currently funded year, would the proposal for an
         additional year of BMRP funding remedy the other agency's criticisms and make this project more competitive for national funding?