D
PWSSC/OSRI Proposal Review Form

Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute

P.O. Box 705 - Cordova, AK 99574 - (907) 424-5800; fax 424-5820 e-mail:frontdes@pwssc.gen.ak.us

************************************************************

PROPOSAL REVIEW FORM

************************************************************

Guide for Reviewers

Thank you for your expertise and time in reviewing this proposal. We need an impartial and professional evaluation. If you find you have a conflict of interest, please notify us and return this proposal.

You may range as widely in your comments as you wish; however, please strive to make your comments both constructive and civil, even for unfavorable assessments. You are encouraged to point out the proposals strong points as well as the weak ones. You need not be concerned about the proposal format.

Please either type your comments on separate sheets of paper and attach this form, or e-mail the written comments to bird@pwssc.gen.ak.us. We request that all proposals be treated as the intellectual property of the



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 148
The Oil Spill Recovery Institute: Past, Present, and Future Directions D PWSSC/OSRI Proposal Review Form Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute P.O. Box 705 - Cordova, AK 99574 - (907) 424-5800; fax 424-5820 e-mail:frontdes@pwssc.gen.ak.us ************************************************************ PROPOSAL REVIEW FORM ************************************************************ Guide for Reviewers Thank you for your expertise and time in reviewing this proposal. We need an impartial and professional evaluation. If you find you have a conflict of interest, please notify us and return this proposal. You may range as widely in your comments as you wish; however, please strive to make your comments both constructive and civil, even for unfavorable assessments. You are encouraged to point out the proposals strong points as well as the weak ones. You need not be concerned about the proposal format. Please either type your comments on separate sheets of paper and attach this form, or e-mail the written comments to bird@pwssc.gen.ak.us. We request that all proposals be treated as the intellectual property of the

OCR for page 148
The Oil Spill Recovery Institute: Past, Present, and Future Directions principal investigators or their employers. Their confidentiality must be respected during the review process. Please complete the rating summary below: If you do not wish to remain anonymous, sign the review. Return your review and the proposal directly to me. Also, retain a copy for your own files to guard against loss in the mail. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Thank you! Evaluation criteria: Is the proposal clearly written and understandable? Are there clear objectives for the project? Is there a clear outline of organization for its implementation? Does the project propose multi-disciplinary or multi-organizational coordination? Or, does it include partnerships with industry, agencies and others to accomplish its goals? Are there entities missing which should be involved in this project? Does the proposed work have a low, moderate or high chance of contributing new information, developing a new method or providing an unique service to its field? If successful, would the proposal make an unique, major, moderate, minor or insignificant contribution? Do the investigator(s) identify who the major users of the results will be? Do the investigator(s) have the expertise to implement this project? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Rating summary (check one): Fund ____ Fund after minor revisions ____ Reconsider after major revision ____ Reject ____ Better suited for other funding ____ Reviewer’s signature (optional, but encouraged):