Review Criteria
User proposals are peer-reviewed against the three criteria listed below. For each criterion, the reviewer rates the proposal Outstanding, Excellent, Good, Fundamentally Sound, or Questionable Impact and provides detailed comments on the quality of the proposal to support each rating, specifically noting the proposal's strengths and weaknesses. The reviewer also provides overall comments and recommendations to support the ratings given. These scores and comments serve as the starting point for Proposal Review Panel (PRP) discussions. The PRP is responsible for the final score and recommendation to EMSL management.
Criterion 1: Scientific merit, including scientific impact, and quality of the proposed research (50%)
Potential Considerations: How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?
Criterion 2: Relevance of the proposed research to the missions of EMSL and the Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program (25%)
EMSL’s mission is to accelerate scientific discovery and pioneer new capabilities to understand biological and environmental processes across temporal and spatial scales. EMSL supports the mission of the Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program to achieve a predictive understanding of complex biological, Earth, and environmental systems for the nation’s energy and infrastructure sustainability and security. The BER program seeks to understand the biological, biogeochemical, and physical processes that span from molecular and genomics-controlled scales to the regional and global scales that govern changes in watershed dynamics, climate, and the Earth system.
Starting with the genetic information encoded in organisms’ genomes, BER research seeks to discover the principles that guide the translation of genetic code into functional proteins and the metabolic and regulatory networks underlying the systems biology of plants and microbes as they respond to and modify their environments. This predictive understanding will enable design and reengineering of the microbes and plants underpinning energy independence and a broad clean energy portfolio, including improved biofuels and bioproducts, improved carbon storage capabilities, and controlled biological transformation of materials such as nutrients and contaminants in the environment.
BER research further advances the fundamental understanding of the dynamic, physical, and biogeochemical processes required to systematically develop Earth system models that integrate across the atmosphere, land masses, oceans, sea ice, and subsurface. These predictive tools and approaches are needed to inform policies and plans for ensuring the security and resilience of the Nation’s critical infrastructure and natural resources.
Potential Considerations: What is the relationship of the proposed research to EMSL's and BER's missions? Does the research significantly advance mission goals and align with the focus topics for EMSL's science areas as outlined in the most recent Call for Proposals? Will the proposed research advance scientific and/or technological understanding of issues pertaining to one or more EMSL science areas? How well does the project plan represent a unique or innovative application or development of EMSL capabilities?
Criterion 3: Appropriateness and reasonableness of the request for EMSL resources for the proposed research (25%)
Potential Considerations: Are EMSL capabilities and resources essential to performing this research? Are the proposed methods/approaches optimal for achieving the scientific objectives of the proposal? Are the requested resources reasonable and appropriate for the proposed research? Does the complexity and/or scope of the effort justify the duration of the proposed project, including any modifications to EMSL equipment to carry out research? Is the specified work plan practical and achievable for the proposed research project? Is the amount of time requested for each piece of equipment clearly justified and appropriate?
Download a copy of our scoring rubric for proposals.
