Depending on client preferences and the nature of the review, research proposal and progress report reviews are sometimes accomplished by mail (combined with teleconferences as needed), rather than at an in-person panel meeting.
The NCSE's Wildlife Habitat Policy Research Program (WHPRP) Committee relies heavily on AIBS proposal scores and final critiques to make funding decisions. For these reviews, AIBS SPARS identifies appropriate scientists and field practitioners for the review panels. Instead of face-to-face meetings, panel discussions are held via teleconference.
Example NCSE topic areas:
The KUMC supports several research programs through various funding mechanisms. These programs have addressed a variety of biomedical topics and are intended to help strengthen biomedical research and training centers in Kansas. AIBS finds reviewers and facilitates mail/teleconference reviews of proposals.
AIBS has provided peer review for the Kansas Masonic Cancer Research Institute; the Kansas Institute Development Awards Network of Biomedical Research Excellence; and the Kansas IDeA Network of Biomedical Research Excellence Major Starter Grants.
Example KUMC topic areas:
AIBS SPARS has learned through our experience that when it is time to review research progress reports, it is often preferable to have the progress reviews done by the same experts who originally reviewed the proposals. In 2006, we reviewed progress reports for the Bone Health and Military Medical Readiness Research Program, the Gulf War Monitoring Project, and NETRP. AIBS SPARS arranged to have the progress reviews conducted by the original reviewers whenever possible, adding quality and continuity to the reviews.
Example Progress Report topic areas: