Bookmark and Share


Mail Reviews of Research Proposals and Progress Reports

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.

Proposal Review by Mail

National Council on Science and the Environment (NCSE)
2002 to present

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:

  • State Wildlife Action Plans
  • Climate Change
  • Performance Measures
  • Habitat Banking
  • State/Local Policy
  • Conservation Costs
  • Ecological Services
  • Operational Benefits Tools

Kansas University Medical Center (KUMC)
2004 - present

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:

  • Cancer biology
  • Experimental therapeutics
  • Cancer risk assessment, prevention, and control
  • Reproduction and embryonic development
  • Organogenesis
  • Developmental neuroscience
  • Cellular and developmental pathologies
  • Reproduction and embryonic development
  • Organogenesis
  • Developmental neuroscience
  • Cellular and developmental pathologies

USAMRMC Progress Report Reviews
2000-present

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:

  • Bone health
  • Gulf War illnesses
  • Neurotoxin exposure and treatment

Bookmark and Share


News from SPARS



Scientists Review Peer Review


You and your colleagues at AIBS did an absolutely first rate job in running this review.

— Tinnitus Review, 2011

The review panel was thorough, fair and comprehensive.

— Tinnitus Review, 2011

It was remarkable and very different from traditional NIH study sections.

— CDC Reviewer, 2011

You did a great job putting together a wonderful panel: knowledgeable and passionate with their work, ready to go an extra mile to help new investigators in Africa.

— CDC Reviewer, 2011

We always benefit from critical review of works in our field-it makes us better writers - it points out where confusion and inconsistencies make scientific writing hard to understand or follow. It is always a good thing to critically review others' work!

— Raptor Biologist, 2011

With face-to-face reviews, I meet other scientists with interests and knowledge different than my own, which provides me a resource for my own work.

— Cell Biology NYStem reviewer 2010

I enjoy the discussion and learn from the expertise of other scientists. I also benefit by preparing better grants.

— Hematologist/Oncologist, NYStem reviewer 2010