Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by experts in the subject matter of the application. Reveiwers represent all of the participating CORE sub-specialty societies. Priority scores will be assigned to applications based on their scientific merit, feasibility, innovation, and approach. Additional evaluation criteria include:
The extent to which the project, if successfully carried out, will make an original and important contribution to biomedical and/or behavioral science.
The extent to which the conceptual framework, design (including, as applicable, the selection of appropriate subject populations or animal models), methods, and analyses are properly developed, well-integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project, including the following:
The likelihood that the proposed work can be accomplished in the project period by the investigators, and the adequacy of plans for the recruitment and retention of human subjects where applicable.
The appropriate, safe, and humane use of subjects, both human and animal, in the project. There is need to ascertain not only if the project has been approved by the appropriate intramural institutional committees, but also if these are acceptable procedures. Institutional approval is not a priori evidence of a procedure's acceptability.
The following will be used to evaluate personnel:
The following will be considered in evaluating the fiscal plan:
See Summary of Allowable Salary and Travel Costs (PDF) for more information.
How Funding Decisions Are Made
For the AAO-HNSF grants, the CORE Study Section subcommittee chairs presents its recommendations for funding of AAO-HNS Foundation grant applications to the AAO-HNS Foundation Board of Directors, through the Coordinator for Research, at its next regularly scheduled meeting following the study section. All final decisions regarding actual award of grants are based on the scores of the meritorious applications.
For the contributing societies and foundations, the recommendations, applications, final priority scores and critiques are shared with each contributing society and foundation. Each society and foundation has a slightly different process; however, in general, the final decision is made by an advisory panel, council or board.