Grant Application Review Process and Guidelines
amfAR receives hundreds of proposals each year from researchers around the world and funds the highest quality projects. In evaluating these proposals, amfAR employs a peer review process modeled closely on those used by other major scientific research institutions, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The scientific peer review process ensures the quality and relevance of research activities and helps maintain the scientific objectivity and credibility of amfAR’s grant-making programs.
REVIEW COMMITTEE
Each application is evaluated by three external scientific reviewers and amfAR’s Vice President of Research. This committee ensures a balanced and expert assessment of every proposal.
External reviewers
- Submit preliminary scores and written evaluations.
- Present and discuss assigned applications during the review session.
- May revise their scores following the discussion.
amfAR’s Vice President of Research
- Reads and evaluates all applications.
- Moderates and contributes to the discussion during the review session, ensuring all perspectives are considered.
- Selects top-ranked proposals to be presented to amfAR’s Board of Trustees for final funding approval.
STEP-BY-STEP REVIEW PROCESS
- Preliminary review
Reviewers independently submit written evaluations and score each application on 5 different criteria using a whole number 1–9 NIH-style scale, where 1 indicates exceptional merit and 9 indicates significant weaknesses (Table 1).
Table 1
| Score | Descriptor | Additional Guidance |
|---|---|---|
| 1 – 2 | EXCEPTIONAL | The application is outstanding and meets or exceeds all expectations for this criterion, with minimal to no weaknesses. |
| 3 – 4 | EXCELLENT | The application is strong, with some minor weaknesses that slightly reduce its overall impact or feasibility. |
| 5 – 6 | GOOD | The application is solid but moderate weaknesses are present, reducing confidence in the proposed approach or impact. |
| 7 – 8 | SATISFACTORY | The application is adequate but has significant weaknesses that limit its likelihood of success or overall value. |
| 9 | DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERION | The application fails to meet the minimum expectations for the criterion, with major flaws that require substantial revision. |
Table 1: 9-point scoring scale used to evaluate all amfAR grant proposals.
- Review session
First, the three external reviewers present and discuss the application’s general focus, highlighting strengths and weaknesses. The application is then discussed by the review committee at large. Reviewers may adjust their criterion scores at the end of the discussion. - Post-review scoring and ranking
- Applications are ranked by their final score.
- Selected top-ranked applications are presented to amfAR’s Board of Trustees for final funding approval.
- All criterion scores and written comments are shared anonymously with the applicants.
- Applications that receive a final score equal to/lower than 2 but are not funded may qualify for re-submission in the following RFP cycle.
REVIEW CRITERIA
Although reviewers score each criterion separately, not all criteria contribute equally to the weighted criterion average. For each grant mechanism, amfAR assigns each criterion a percentage weight that reflects its relative importance. The contribution of each criterion is calculated as: reviewer score × criterion weight. The weighted criterion average is the sum of those contributions. Criteria with higher percentage weights have greater influence on the weighted average. Because lower scores indicate stronger applications, a strong score in a higher-weighted criterion lowers the weighted average more, while a weak score in a higher-weighted criterion raises it more.
Target and Horizon Grants
Target and Horizon grant applications are evaluated based on the following criteria: Investigator, Significance, Innovation, Approach, and Environment (Table 2).
Table 2
| INVESTIGATOR |
|---|
| The applicant and their team demonstrate outstanding potential to conduct the proposed project. They have a proven track record of impactful research and the ability to execute the proposed experiments. |
| SIGNIFICANCE |
| The proposed project addresses a pressing and clearly articulated gap in its research field, with the potential to create groundbreaking advancements. The outcomes may significantly influence future research directions and/or clinical practice or fostering long-term benefits for affected populations. |
| INNOVATION |
| The application introduces a highly original and transformative concept, methodology, or technology that challenges existing paradigms. The approach offers novel perspectives or solutions that hold substantial promise for accelerating research outcomes or improving patient care. |
| APPROACH |
| The research plan is meticulously designed, with clearly defined objectives, robust methodologies, and appropriate analyses that leave no aspect of the study to chance. Contingency plans address potential challenges, ensuring the study is resilient to unforeseen issues. Ethical considerations are fully addressed, with clear compliance with all relevant standards. |
| ENVIRONMENT |
| The scientific and institutional environment provides all necessary resources, facilities, and expertise to ensure the project’s success. |
Table 2: Scoring criteria applied to Target and Horizon grants.
For Target and Horizon grant applications, Significance and Innovation carry special importance. Table 3 shows the percentage weight assigned to each criterion and provides an example of how reviewer-assigned scores are converted into a weighted criterion average.
Table 3
| Criterion | Score assigned by the reviewer | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| INVESTIGATOR | 2 | 10% | 0.2 |
| SIGNIFICANCE | 1 | 30% | 0.3 |
| INNOVATION | 1 | 30% | 0.3 |
| APPROACH | 2 | 20% | 0.4 |
| ENVIRONMENT | 2 | 10% | 0.2 |
| Average: | 1.6(simple) | 1.4(weighted) |
Table 3: Percentage weights for Target and Horizon grant criteria. The contribution for each criterion is the reviewer score multiplied by the criterion weight; the weighted criterion average is the sum of all contributions.
Mathilde Krim Fellowships in Biomedical Research
Krim fellowships applications are evaluated based on the following criteria: Investigator, Significance, Innovation, Approach and Mentorship & Environment (Table 4).
Table 4
| INVESTIGATOR |
|---|
| The applicant demonstrates outstanding potential for an independent research career. They have 1) a proven track record of impactful research, 2) the ability to execute the proposed project, and 3) a well-defined trajectory toward independence, by proposing a line of research sufficiently distinct from the mentor’s own research. |
| SIGNIFICANCE |
| The proposed project addresses a pressing and clearly articulated gap in its research field, with the potential to create groundbreaking advancements. The outcomes may significantly influence future research directions and/or clinical practice or fostering long-term benefits for affected populations. |
| INNOVATION |
| The application introduces a highly original and transformative concept, methodology, or technology that challenges existing paradigms. The approach offers novel perspectives or solutions that hold substantial promise for accelerating research outcomes or improving patient care. |
| APPROACH |
| The research plan is meticulously designed, with clearly defined objectives, robust methodologies, and appropriate analyses that leave no aspect of the study to chance. Contingency plans address potential challenges, ensuring the study is resilient to unforeseen issues. Ethical considerations are fully addressed, with clear compliance with all relevant standards. |
| MENTORSHIP & ENVIRONMENT |
| The mentor is a distinguished scientist with a strong track record of successful mentorship. The scientific and institutional environment provides all necessary resources, facilities, and expertise to ensure the project’s success. |
Table 4: Scoring criteria applied to Krim Fellowships.
For Krim Fellowship applications, Investigator carries special importance. Table 5 shows the percentage weight assigned to the Investigator criterion and provides an example of how reviewer-assigned scores are converted into a weighted criterion average.
Table 5
| Criterion | Score assigned by the reviewer | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| INVESTIGATOR | 1 | 30% | 0.3 |
| SIGNIFICANCE | 2 | 20% | 0.4 |
| INNOVATION | 2 | 20% | 0.4 |
| APPROACH | 2 | 20% | 0.4 |
| MENTORSHIP & ENVIRONMENT | 2 | 10% | 0.2 |
| Average: | 1.8(simple) | 1.7(weighted) |
Table 5: Percentage weights for Krim Fellowship criteria. The contribution for each criterion is the reviewer score multiplied by the criterion weight; the weighted criterion average is the sum of all contributions.
The Investigator criterion summarizes the reviewers’ assessment of the applicant’s likelihood to secure an independent research position within 30 months from the beginning of the performance period (or 6-months from the end of the 2-year performance period).
CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY
amfAR routinely ensures that no Conflict of Interest (COI) exists between external peer reviewers and applicants (or co-applicants). Generally, a COI exists when a reviewer, or their close family member, has a professional and/or financial interest that does, or could be construed to, bias their assessment of an application.