AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT

FACULTY OF MEDICINE

Also check the document entitled: Procedures for Submission and Review of Research Proposals, which is also available as a Word document.

 

   The following letter, addressed by Dean Samir Najjar to all faculty members, summarizes the processes of review, evaluation, and recommendation for funding followed by the Research Committee.  At present most of the reviews of research proposals are undertaken locally and the Board of External Reviewers mentioned in item #2 has not been officially set up yet.

   Some changes have been introduced since then, e.g., funding through the URB has become competitive and based upon the recommendations of the Research Committee (see item #5).  The deadlines for submission of proposals vary from one year to another but are usually February 28 for the Spring Cycle and September 30 for the Fall Cycle.

 

September 4, 1998  

TO                   : All Faculty Members

FROM            : Samir S. Najjar, M.D., Dean, Faculty of Medicine & Medical Center

SUBJECT       : Research Proposals

 

            The primary aim of the Research Committee of the Faculty of Medicine (RC) is to help investigators achieve their research objectives by supplying them with the necessary funds to complete their work, provided they submit a clear and scientifically sound research proposal that fulfills some basic objective requirements. For the past two years, the RC has been repeatedly reviewing the system for processing of research proposals, with the aim of standardizing the evaluation and funding processes. The following facts prompt and justify periodic re-assessment of policy: 

1.      the increasing number of proposals being submitted per year and required funds

2.      the insufficiency of present resources to support all the funding needs of submitted proposals

3.      the need, therefore, to set lists of priority for funding proposals based on objective criteria

4.      the increasing specialization in some areas of research that require expert evaluation, which is not always available locally 

The following points describe the process and the governing policies for grant applications, review and funding 

1.      All proposals must closely follow a set of instructions and guidelines (Word Format) circulated by the RC, available to investigators upon request from the chairman of the Committee. These instructions are derived from those recommended by major funding agencies such as the National Institutes of Health of the U.S.A 

Rationale: The purpose of this exercise is twofold: first, it will help the investigator plan his/her study better by addressing certain essential aspects of conducting research work; second, it will ensure that the essential points to be sought by the reviewers are addressed (see below regarding the review process). The proposal must present a well thought-out and well planned scientific approach that convinces the reader that definitive and significant results will be reached, and will justify the requested budget.

2.      Each proposal will be screened initially by the RC. If all documents are available, and provided the proposal meets with the minimal requirements described in the instructions, the RC will seek the opinion of at least one reviewer from A.U.B. and of at least one expert chosen from a board of external reviewers. The board of external reviewers is in the progress of being established. The reviewers will be guided by instructions from the RC that take into consideration local concerns and needs and the goals of our institution.  

Rationale: The purpose of this exercise is, Primarily, to permit discussion among peers whereby the investigator may benefit from the expertise of colleagues engaged in similar pursuits, who may contribute valuably to the design and outcome of the proposed studies. Needless to say, such an interaction will also enrich the reviewers' capabilities as well. In addition, this review will help the RC evaluate proposals and assign them a priority score. Here, it is important to underscore the great value of open discussion in promoting progress and development in academia. These reviews are sought, and ought to be received, in a constructive manner, and ought not to be considered criticism of one's work or person 

3.      The reviewers will submit a written critique of the proposal make comments and recommendations, and fill a score sheet provided by the RC. 

These comments and recommendations, if necessary, will be relayed by the RC to the investigator for his/her responses. The responses must address, in a specific manner, the points raised by the reviewers and must not engage in rhetoric or address personal issues. The comments have to be made, received and answered objectively.  The RC has the responsibility of ensuring that all reviewers' comments are relevant and not biased 

4.      The RC, after studying the proposal carefully, a process that includes responses and clarifications by investigators to the Committee's and reviewer's comments, will assign to each proposal a priority score, based upon each reviewers recommendation and score, as well as the productivity and track-record of the investigators.  

The presence of previous publications related to the topic will enhance the funding potential of the proposal. However, a good publication record alone is not enough to ensure funding automatically, especially if the proposal is found lacking. The principle governing this policy is that funding, which is limited by the available resources, is provided on a competitive basis, determined primarily by the submitted proposal and not by the person of the investigator, although the latter consideration has a role to play in the final decision. 

5.      After funds are obtained from the LNCSR and URB (both not under the control of the Faculty of Medicine), the money available from the MPP, DTS, and other Faculty of Medicine Research Funds will be used to complement the funding of the proposals based upon the set priority scores. 

Thus, proposals will be completely funded starting with the highest score and going down the list until all the money is spent. Those proposals which are not funded during one cycle may be resubmitted during the following cycle. Investigators are urged not to inflate their budgets in the belief that this will ensure them of the actual needed funds. This, in fact, will be counterproductive and will delay the processing of proposals. 

6.      There will be two cycles per year for funding from local sources. 

The Spring Cycle (deadline for submission by January 30 of each year) will be especially targeted to those proposals which require a large sum of money and which are ongoing as part of a research program of the investigator. This will help pool orders from abroad and may reduce costs. This cycle will dispense a maximum of 70-80% of the money available from NEPP and DTS research funds.  The Fall Cycle (deadline September 15 of each year) is especially targeted to those newly recruited faculty members, to small proposals and pilot studies (< $ 5000), and to graduate student research support (from DTS research fund). 

7.      Investigators may submit proposals requesting funding for more than one year and up to three years. 

Rationale: In such cases, clear landmarks should be stated specifying what is hoped to be achieved in each year, and the budget required for that. At the end of each year, progress will be evaluated and further funding will be contingent on a re-evaluation of the proposal based on the progress as per the landmarks initially proposed by the investigator, and on availability of funds. This process will decrease the work of the investigators, the RC and the reviewers, and will shorten the processing time. Alternatively, investigators may choose to submit a new proposal every year. 

8.      Present projects which the investigators consider as "renewals" will cease to be so considered by the RC. 

The investigators may reapply as in the previous point (7), provided a full proposal is submitted. 

9.      There is no limit to the number of proposals that can be submitted by one faculty member. Investigators are encouraged however to focus and plan their overall work. 

In recommending proposals for funding, however, consideration will be given to the total amount of money available for an investigator even though it may be for different proposals and from different sources 

10.  The RC will explore possible alternative sources of research funding for different proposals from local or international organizations and/or companies that are so inclined, and will make these known to the faculty members.

   

cc.        Dr. Nadim Cortas, Associate Dean for Research & Development

Dr. Ramzi Sabra, Chairman of Research Committee