Enhanced Review

This page describes a suite of free and fee-based services for UM faculty/researchers, provided or facilitated by the Research Development unit within ORSP, as well as the instructions for requesting those services. These services are available, upon timely request, IN ADDITION TO the standard proposal development support provided by the ORSP Pre-Award team.  For questions, contact Jason Hale (jghale@olemiss.edu, or x2922).

Description of Services

Research Development Non-Technical Review is in-house, no-cost, non-technical review of a proposal Draft Narrative. Unless otherwise specified, an ORSP Research Development staff member will conduct one or more iterations of review for: clarity, effect, and specificity; responsiveness to program guidelines and review criteria; grammar and punctuation; wording/effect; broader/societal impacts; and reference to UM resources and infrastructure. ORSP recommends that PIs also consider adding a fee-based External Disciplinary Expert Review along with the ORSP Enhanced Review. MS Word is the preferred format for drafts submitted for enhance review, so that tracked edits and comments can be provided. For drafts submitted as PDFs, comments and editorial suggestions will be limited to hand-written margin notes.

TIG Internal Review with Revisions is an optional, iterative, fee-based, non-technical Draft Narrative review provided by The Implementation Group (TIG), a DC-based strategic research development firm.  Upon receipt of the narrative from ORSP, TIG will assign it to general reviewer who will provide a critical reading on up to two proposal drafts with respect to the non-technical aspects of the proposal (i.e., idea presentation and development, proposal structure, wording and format, and responsiveness to guidelines). Recommendations will be provided via: highlights and margin comments on up to two proposal drafts; suggested edits to sections, paragraphs, sentences, or words; and a short summary of overall recommendations w/each review; and a call to discuss the recommendations. Also included is one final round of polishing, consisting of a detailed edit to the proposal narrative text.

TIG External Disciplinary Expert Review. TIG has a network of disciplinary subject matter experts to provide technical reviews of proposals. TIG will send the Draft Narrative out to one of these consultants for one iteration review and critique. The disciplinary consultant will vet the science of the application and provide suggestions for overall strengthening, aimed at increasing competitiveness for funding. Each disciplinary consultant will have direct subject-matter expertise and/or previously served at the level of a program director or higher at a federal agency. When TIG reaches out to disciplinary experts to review proposals – these clauses appear:

“Non-Disclosure Agreement: During the term of this Agreement, you may have access to and be provided with information that is confidential and proprietary to TIG and <client>.  With respect to such information, you shall keep it confidential, properly stored and maintained, may only use it for the purpose of providing the services called for under this Agreement, may not disclose it (other than as permitted by this Agreement), and agree to destroy said information upon request by TIG.  To the extent that you wrongfully disclose said information or improperly use this information, you will be responsible for the resulting damages. 

Conflicts: If you are unable to conduct the review(s) due to conflicts, please let us know at your convenience.

When provided in combination with a TIG Internal Review, the External Disciplinary Expert Review will generally be done on the 2nd draft unless otherwise arranged.

Draft Narratives should consist of the main proposal narrative, and an optional a summary or abstract.  For example, for NSF proposals, the Project Description and the Project Summary would make up the Draft Narrative. For NIH, the Research Plan and the Project Summary/Abstract would make up the Draft Narrative.

  1. 1st Draft Narrative: ORSP recommends drafts submitted for 1st iteration review be at least 85% complete.
  2. 2nd Draft Narrative: ORSP recommends drafts submitted for 2nd iteration review be at least 95% complete. PI should have incorporated any intended changes based on 1st iteration review feedback.
  3. Final Draft Narrative: A final draft should be 99 - 100% complete, ready for proof reading and polishing.

Instructions

  1. PI:
    1. Download the Proposal Narrative Request Review Form and read the Instructions.
    2. Complete the General Information section.
    3. Select the Requested Service(s) and Total the Cost.
    4. Enter the amount of any proposed PI contribution, the account number to charge, and, if the review is happening near a fiscal year boundary, the FY to transfer the funds.
    5. If PI is requesting Flagship Constellations (co)funding, go to Step 2.
    6. If PI is requesting Center, Departmental, or Dean (co)funding, go to Step 3.
  2. If Flagship Constellations (co)funding is requested.
    1. PI:
      1. indicate which constellation this proposal is primarily associated with, and any additional constellations the proposal is related to.
      2. route this form to the current co-leader(s) of the associated and/or related constellations for review.
    2. Constellation Co-Leader(s):
      1. Enter the proposed $$ contribution (if any) from flagship constellation funds. Note these funds will NOT come from FC operational account(s).
      2. Only one (co)-leader signature is required from each constellation listed as associated or related to this proposal.
      3. Route form to ORSP Research Development (Jason Hale).
  3. If requesting Chair/Director and/or Dean funding or co-funding for this review:
    1. PI:  Route this form to Chair or Director, and request (co)funding.
    2. Chair or Director (or authorized representative):
      1. Enter the name of the contributing center or department.
      2. Enter the proposed $$ contribution (if any) from departmental or center funds.
      3. Enter the account number from which the contribution should be withdrawn.
      4. If near a FY boundary, specific the FY the contribution should be withdrawn.
      5. Provide the ink or e-signature of a signatory on the account.
      6. Route form to the Dean’s Office (if requesting a $$ contribution from Dean); otherwise, route form to the ORSP Research Development (Jason Hale)
    3. Dean (or authorized representative):
      1. Enter the name of the contributing school or college
      2. Enter the proposed $$ contribution (if any) from school or college funds.
      3. Enter the account number from which the contribution should be withdrawn.
      4. If near a FY boundary, specific the FY the contribution should be withdrawn.
      5. Provide the ink or e-signature of a signatory on the account.
      6. Route form to the ORSP Research Development (Jason Hale)
  4. ORSP Research Development Steps
    1. Complete ORSP Information section of form, upon receipt.
    2. Return copy of Completed Form to PI and all contributors.
    3. Contact TIG to schedule review (if TIG services requested).
    4. Conduct the ORSP Enhanced Review (if requested).
    5. Return the Completed Review(s) to the PI.
    6. Request feedback on quality/value of review from PI.
    7. Initiate transfer of contributed funds to ORSP account.
    8. Receive TIG Invoice and Process Payment.

 

Site Search | Site Index | Feedback | Staff Directory