The Department of Medicine Research Committee will review the applications.  There will be three areas that will be judged:  1) the proposed research plan; 2) the qualifications of the candidate, plans for career development during the award, and the candidate’s career goals; and 3) the mentor’s plan and time available to direct the candidate, overall research environment, and the section commitment to the candidate.  

Reviewers of these DOM grants will consider each of the review criteria below (which are some of the review criteria for NIH K23 grants).

Research Plan 

• Are the proposed research question, design, and methodology of significant scientific and technical merit?
• Is the research plan relevant to the candidate’s research career objectives focusing on patient-oriented research?
• Is the plan for developing/enhancing the candidate’s research skills appropriate and adequate?

Mentor(s), Environment, and Section Commitment to the Candidate

• Are the mentor's research qualifications in the area of the proposed patient-oriented research appropriate?
• Do the mentor(s) adequately address the above review criteria including the candidate’s potential and his/her strengths and areas needing improvement?
• Is there adequate description of the quality and extent of the mentor’s proposed role in providing guidance and advice to the candidate?
• Is the mentor’s description of the elements of the research career development activities, including formal course work, adequate?
• Is there evidence of the mentor’s previous experience in fostering the development of independent investigators?
• Is there evidence of previous research productivity and peer-reviewed support focusing on clinical research?
• Are there adequate plans for monitoring and evaluating the career development awardee’s progress toward independence?

Candidate, Career Development Plan, Career Goal

• Does the candidate have the potential to develop as an independent and productive researcher focusing on patient-oriented research?
• Is there evidence of the candidate’s commitment to meeting the grant objectives to become an independent investigator focusing on patient-oriented research?
• Do the letters of reference from the mentor and section chief address the above review criteria, and do they demonstrate evidence that the candidate has a high potential for becoming an independent investigator?
• What is the likelihood that the career development plan will contribute substantially to the scientific development of the candidate leading to scientific independence?
• Are the goals and scope of the career development plan appropriate?
• Are the content and duration of the proposed didactic research activities during the proposed award period clearly stated and appropriate?
• Are there adequate plans for evaluating the candidate's research and career development progress?