Review Criteria

USER PROPOSAL REVIEW CRITERIA

Proposals are scored from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 5 (outstanding). Each component below will be scored by external reviewers and an overall priority score will also be provided.

General Access:

I. Significance and Scientific Merit  - How strong is the scientific premise for the project? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will the direction, progress, and thinking in relevant scientific fields be improved?

II. Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach - How logical is the research approach? Does the proposed research employ innovative concepts or methods? What is the likelihood of achieving valuable results?

III. Competency of Applicant's Personnel - Does the proposal team possess the breadth of skill/knowledge to successfully perform the proposed research? If requesting independent access and/or training, does the team adequately describe their past experience with high-resolution cryo-EM or describe their long-term training goals in sufficient detail?

IV. Sample Readiness and Reasonableness of the Proposed Resource Request - How feasible is the proposed research based on current sample readiness? If the project is in the early stages of development (i.e. the target protein not yet fully purified or optimal vitrification conditions unknown), will the proposed strategy establish feasibility benchmarks and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Are the requested instrument resources reasonable and appropriate for the proposed work?

Screening Access:

I. Significance and Scientific Merit - How strong is the scientific premise for the project? If the aims of the project are achieved, will the direction, progress, and thinking in relevant scientific fields be improved?

II. Access to Cryo-EM Resources - Does the proposal team justify their need for Cryo-EM resources to conduct screening activities? Do they demonstrate a lack of access to Cryo-EM resources at their home institution? If alternative resources could be reasonably accessed, do they provide justification for why these resources are not suitable?

III. Competency of Applicant's Personnel - Does the proposal team possess the breadth of skill/knowledge to successfully perform the proposed research? Does the team adequately describe their past experience with high-resolution Cryo-EM or describe their relevant background in a related field in sufficient detail?

IV. Sample Readiness and Reasonableness of the Proposed Resource Request - Does the preliminary data demonstrate biochemical readiness for each of the requested specimens?