What are Weak, Good and Very Good as rated by Supervisors or Reviewers while reviewing your proposal - Tutors India

What are Weak, Good and Very Good as Rated by Supervisors or Reviewers
While Reviewing your Proposal
Dr. Nancy Agens, Head,
Technical Operations, Tutorsindia
info@ tutorsindia.com
In Brief
Two-stage document review is conducted in
the review method by all reviewers. Each
member of the review panel will be
necessary to provide the strengths and
weaknesses in written form with reference
to the assessment criterion.
I. INTRODUCTION
Inquiring the proposal excellently and
qualitatively is a dive into the unknown one.
The researcher is not seeking a blank check
from the funding organization, but it’s a big
deal of notion and preparation will be
conducted in preparing the proposal. It also
means that sufficient differences are obvious
in a qualitative proposal that it is
unacceptable and iniquitous to use the
criterion that is quantitative for assessing
qualitative proposals. When assessing a
qualitative proposal, the committee that is
reviewing the proposal must lay the
maximum influence on the proposed idea
and on the skill of the reviewer, viewing the
features of the proposal as supporting proof
of the reviewer’s ability and feasibility of
the project.
general to social science. Rigor means
competence and aptness of the method to
deal with the proposed questions and the
solidarity of the research design. Feasibility
means the skill of the researcher to carry out
the research with the available and requested
resources within the time allotted for the
project, and proof of access to the settings
and users with ethical concerns for
defending the rights of human subjects.
Otherwise, feasibility means the possibility
that the project will be concluded as
mentioned.
III. SCORING SYSTEM AND
PROCEDURE
The reliable scoring of the proposals is
encouraged by the implementation of the
scoring system. Examiners who allot high
ratings to all proposals have the reduced
capability of communicating the methodical
impact of an individual submission.
II. CRITERION FOR ASSESSMENT
The proposed criterion is based on the three
dimensions like relevance, rigor, and
feasibility. Relevance means the potential
role of the research, the importance of the
research question proposed, and the possible
contribution of the results to the field and in
Copyright © 2020 TutorsIndia. All rights reserved 1

Therefore, reviewers should carefully think
about the guidance on the rating mentioned
below to progress the consistency of the
scores as well as the skill of communicating
the methodical impact of the proposals that
have been reviewed.
IV. STAGES OF REVIEWS
Two-stage document review is conducted in
the review method by all reviewers. Here,
the research proposals are reviewed by the
same reviewer over two stages by document
review instead of using the panel review
method. In the first stage of the review
process, an overall rating is allotted to every
research proposal in four grades based on
qualified assessment. Additionally, to unveil
the results from the first stage of the review
process to those who were not approved and
wish to unveil, they will further make an
absolute assessment on individual rating
scores in relation to the research contents,
etc. In the absolute assessment done for each
rating factor, if 2 are assigned which means
somewhat insufficient or 1 is assigned which
means insufficient, then they will make a
decision on why it was reviewed as
somewhat insufficient or insufficient for
either point of the rating factor. In the
second stage of the review method, the same
reviewer who reviewed the first stage will
assign a new score on the relevant research
proposal based on the result of the derived
from the first stage review process. At that
time, verify the comments provided by the
reviewers in the first stage, etc., and of all
the reviewers who are assessing the same
research proposal, and then allot a score
based on their own insight. The approval of
research proposals and the provision of
expenses for research will be decided based
on that allotted score.
V. IMPACT IS A FUNCTION OF
SIGNIFICANCE AND LIKELIHOOD
The overall impact score in the peer review
method is based on the primary outcome,
reflecting the judgment of the reviewers on
two broad concepts: significance and
likelihood.
1. Significance – The importance and
novelty of the research problem, its
capability to move forward the limit of
knowledge.
2. Likelihood- the ability of each individual
as a principal investigator has the ability to
achieve their ends, as assessed by their
experimental design, the proficiency of their
team, and the resources at the clearance to
execute the research. Significance and
likelihood together form impact. It also
helps to bear in mind about these
relationships using this simple rule: Impact
= Function (significance, likelihood).
Each member of the review panel will be
necessary to provide the strengths and
weaknesses in written form with reference to
the assessment criterion. The strengths and
weaknesses will form as a foundation for
assigning a numerical value to the
applications. The strength of the proposal is
its feature that when compared to the
Copyright © 2020 TutorsIndia. All rights reserved 2

declared assessment criterion, emerges to
influence completely the possibility of the
successful accomplishment of the probable
economic assistance agreement. A weakness
of the application is its aspect that when
compared to the declared assessment
criterion, emerges to negatively influence
the possibility of successful accomplishment
of the potential economic assistance
agreement. The chairperson of the merit
review panel might schedule a consensus
review meeting following the completion of
individual merit reviews, and then organize
the improvement of the strengths and
weaknesses of the consent and its scores.
VI. CONCLUSION
The qualitative proposal must be weighed
according to the traits of the reviewer, their
suggestion, and the proposed method to
analyze the research problem. The
committee must be convinced over the
proposal that the researcher is skilled, that
the research is valuable of funding, and that
the research methods will enable the
researcher to deal with the problem.
Additionally, reviewers are more concerned
about principles and that no damage results
from the research. It is the responsibility of
the researcher to prepare a convincing yet
balanced, comprehensive proposal within
the limit of the guidelines of the review
panel. It is the liability of the review panel to
provide a proficient, convincing, and a fair
review. The review panel must identify that
the review guidelines are exact, then they
will not be utilizable for all types of
research; if guidelines for review are
general, then the review committee must
provide a balanced and fair mix of
proficiency within the membership of the
review committee to provide the necessary
review.
Copyright © 2020 TutorsIndia. All rights reserved 2