(*Formerly known as FRCAC)

Administrative Review
Proposals will be administratively prescreened by ORSP prior to being reviewed by the MT-IGO committee.  No changes to the submission will be allowed once the deadline has passed.  Only completed proposals will be forwarded to the committee for review; incomplete proposals will be administratively removed. 

"Two-step" Review Process
MT-IGO adopts a two-step review process to enable individual review by a specialist as well as holistic review which is conducted by the committee.  This mechanism is expected to help the committee arrive at the most competitive proposals from a pool of applications in a given funding session.  The final determination of the proposals recommended to the ORSP Director and Vice Provost for Research for funding will be informed by individual reviews and the panel summary.  

Reviewer Assignment
After the grant deadline, the committee chair will prepare a reviewer list.  Two reviewers, with no known conflicts of interests, will be assigned for each proposal.  The committee will appoint non-voting ad hoc reviewers if necessary depending on the alignment of committee member expertise and the topic of the submitted proposal.  Although the ad hoc reviewers may not vote in the final meeting, they will however be invited to all subsequent meetings and deliberations.  The committee will strongly consider their recommendations and concerns while making the final determination.  

Proposal Review
Once assigned to a proposal(s), the members review them in accordance with the scoring rubric. The committee takes all criteria into consideration when reviewing proposals to ensure optimal feedback is provided.  Please keep in mind the primary objective of the MT-IGO committee review process is to determine if the proposal will be competitive for external funding upon completion of the project. 

If the PI is an established researcher, such as tenured faculty or full professor, then the reviewers will also evaluate if the proposal offers a new direction in comparison to the applicant’s ongoing studies.  Subsequently, the reviewers will also evaluate the feasibility of the study's specific aims within the projected timeline and available resources.  The qualification and expertise of the PI to lead and succeed will also be critically evaluated.  

Most importantly, the reviewers will consider if the study has the potential to lend to a competitive proposal for external funding and to extend the scope and reach of the research agenda.  

Committee Meeting & Vote
Typically, in early November for fall submissions and in late March for spring resubmissions, the committee meets to collectively review the propsoals and funding recommendations.  The two primary reviewers share their feedback with the full committee, and elaborate upon the rationale for their funding recommendation.  Then the committee members each submit individual ratings for the proposal and they are ranked in order.  The number of awards each cycle are dependent upon the budget.  

Notification of Award
Notification letters will be sent via email to the applicants via email within a week after the committee makes their recommendations.   

• Approval letters will disclose the funding amount along with important account numbers and instructions to the applicants.  The supplemental section of the letter will also contain unedited reviewer comments and other notes generated during the meeting.  
• Conditional Award Letters will disclose the funding amount, but the funds offered may be different from what was requested by the applicant.  The PI can either accept or decline depending on whether the recommended funds and the terms are conditions are acceptable. 
• Denied proposal notifications will provide reviewer comments and possible reasons for the decision.  Additionally, the applicants will receive unedited-anonymous reviewer comments.   

Appeals
All committee decisions are final and applicants may not appeal or request for additional review once a determination has been made. However, the applicants are encouraged to revise and resubmit their proposal in one of the subsequent funding sessions.