Main Content

Review Process

The Review Process

Campus Research Board proposals are held to the highest standards, and hundreds of proposals are evaluated by faculty peers and Board members every year. Proposals are evaluated on the quality and importance of the proposed research, the probable impact the proposed work would have on the field, the value for development of the applicant’s research potential and progress, the productivity of the applicant and quality of their scholarship, and the budget appropriateness, both in terms of the project proposed and of the Campus Research Board’s resources, including consideration of need and availability of external support. 

About the Board

The Research Board consists of twelve faculty members chosen for their scholarship, expertise, and administrative ability. Board members are full-time faculty and active in their fields. 

The Board is divided into five subcommittees, according to disciplinary areas:

  • Life Sciences and Agriculture
  • Physical Sciences, Engineering, and Mathematics
  • Psychological & Social Sciences, Education
  • Humanities
  • Fine and Applied Arts

Each subcommittee is comprised of at least two Board members. 

Research Board members review proposals for Research Support Awards, Humanities Teaching Release Time, and the Performing Arts and Design Program. The Executive Officer of the Board reviews Scholars' Travel Fund applications, and an ad-hoc committee reviews proposals for the Funding Initiative for Multiracial Democracy

Peer Review

Board members determine who will be asked to submit a peer review. Reviewers are chosen from the Campus Research Board’s database of potential reviewers, recommendations given on the application form, and faculty members the subcommittee members know to have expertise in the subject. Three peer reviews are sought. Reviewers are provided access to a copy of the complete proposal and the Campus Research Board’s criteria for evaluation of projects. Reviewers then return their evaluations to the Board members. 

The Research Board considers applicants’ requests in relation to their current research funding support, both internal and external. Applications that do not adhere to the existing funds disclosure policy will not be sent for peer review.

The Board member makes a recommendation to the full Board based on the peer reviewers’ evaluations, conferral with subcommittee members, and their own judgment.


After consideration of the recommendation and discussion by the Board, a final decision is made. The Board’s decisions are communicated to the applicant after the allocation meeting. If funding is granted, a copy of the disposition letter is sent to the relevant department head and business manager.

For declined or partially granted projects, the disposition letter might include reviewers’ comments that are particularly helpful or informative. The Board does not provide the peer review evaluations to applicants. If the applicant would like to further discuss the reasons that the determination was made, the applicant may contact the Campus Research Board for further information.