| (a) For all Grant Applications that are not administratively
withdrawn by the Institute for noncompliance or otherwise withdrawn
by the Grant Applicant, the Institute shall use a two-stage Peer Review
process.
(1) The Peer Review process, as described herein, is
used to identify and recommend meritorious Cancer Research projects,
including those projects with Cancer Research Product Development
prospects, and evidence-based Cancer Prevention and Control projects
for Grant Award consideration by the Program Integration Committee
and the Oversight Committee.
(2) Peer Review will be conducted pursuant to the requirements
set forth in Chapter 702 of this title (relating to Institute Standards
on Ethics and Conflicts, Including the Acceptance of Gifts and Donations
to the Institute) and Chapter 102, Texas Health and Safety Code.
(b) The two stages of the Peer Review Process used
by the Institute are:
(1) Evaluation of Grant Applications by Peer Review
Panels; and
(2) Prioritization of Grant Applications by the Prevention
Review Council, the Product Development Review Council, or the Scientific
Review Council, as may be appropriate for the Grant Program.
(c) Except as described in subsection (e) of this section,
the Peer Review Panel evaluation process encompasses the following
actions, which will be consistently applied:
(1) The Institute distributes all Grant Applications
submitted for a particular Grant Mechanism to one or more Peer Review
Panels.
(2) The Peer Review Panel chairperson assigns each
Grant Application to no less than two panel members that serve as
the Primary Reviewers for the Grant Application. Assignments are made
based upon the expertise and background of the Primary Reviewer in
relation to the Grant Application.
(3) The Primary Reviewer is responsible for individually
evaluating all components of the Grant Application, critiquing the
merits according to explicit criteria published in the Request for
Applications, and providing an individual Overall Evaluation Score
that conveys the Primary Reviewer's general impression of the Grant
Application's merit. The Primary Reviewers' individual Overall Evaluation
Scores are averaged together to produce a single initial Overall Evaluation
Score for the Grant Application.
(4) The Peer Review Panel meets to discuss the Grant
Applications assigned to the Peer Review Panel. If there is insufficient
time to discuss all Grant Applications, the Peer Review Panel chairperson
determines the Grant Applications to be discussed by the panel. The
chairperson's decision is based largely on the Grant Application's
initial Overall Evaluation Score; however, a Peer Review Panel member
may request that a Grant Application be discussed by the Peer Review
Panel.
(A) If a Grant Application is not discussed by the
Peer Review Panel, then the initial Overall Evaluation Score serves
as the final Overall Evaluation Score for the Grant Application. The
Grant Application is not considered further during the Grant Review
Cycle.
(B) If a Grant Application is discussed by the Peer
Review Panel, each Peer Review Panel member submits a score for the
Grant Application based on the panel member's general impression of
the Grant Application's merit and accounting for the explicit criteria
published in the Request for Applications. The submitted scores are
averaged together to produce the final Overall Evaluation Score for
the Grant Application.
(i) The panel chairperson participates in the discussion
but does not score Grant Applications.
(ii) A Primary Reviewer has the option to revise his
or her score for the Grant Application after panel discussion or to
keep the same score submitted during the initial review.
(C) If the Peer Review Panel recommends changes to
the Grant Award funds amount requested by the Grant Applicant or to
the Scope of Work for the proposed project, then the recommended changes
and explanation shall be recorded at the time the final Overall Evaluation
Score is set.
(5) At the conclusion of the Peer Review Panel evaluation,
the Peer Review Panel chairperson submits to the appropriate Review
Council a list of Grant Applications discussed by the panel ranked
in order by the final Overall Evaluation Score. Any changes to the
Grant Award funding amount or to the Scope of Work recommended by
the Peer Review Panel shall be provided to the Review Council at that
time.
(d) The Review Council's prioritization process for
Grant Award recommendations encompasses the following actions, which
will be consistently applied:
(1) The Review Council prioritizes the Grant Application
recommendations across all the Peer Review Panels by assigning a Numerical
Ranking Score to each Grant Application that was discussed by a Peer
Review Panel. The Numerical Ranking Score is substantially based on
the final Overall Evaluation Score submitted by the Peer Review Panel,
but also takes into consideration how well the Grant Application achieves
program priorities set by the Oversight Committee, the overall Program
portfolio balance, and any other criteria described in the Request
for Applications.
(2) The Review Council's recommendations are submitted
simultaneously to the presiding officers of the Program Integration
Committee and Oversight Committee. The recommendations, listed in
order by Numerical Ranking Score, shall include:
(A) An explanation describing how the Grant Application
meets the Review Council's standards for Grant Award funding;
(B) The final Overall Evaluation Score assigned to
the Grant Application by the Peer Review Panel, including an explanation
for ranking one or more Grant Applications ahead of another Grant
Application with a more favorable final Overall Evaluation Score;
and
(C) The specified amount of the Grant Award funding
for each Grant Application, including an explanation for recommended
changes to the Grant Award funding amount or to the Scope of Work.
(3) A Grant Award recommendation is not final until
the Review Council formally submits the recommendation to the presiding
officers of the Program Integration Committee and the Oversight Committee.
The Program Integration Committee, and, if appropriate, the Oversight
Committee must make a final decision on the Grant Award recommendation
in the same state fiscal year that the Review Council submits its
final recommendation.
(e) Circumstances relevant to a particular Grant Mechanism
or to a Grant Review Cycle may justify changes to the dual-stage Peer
Review process described in subsections (c) and (d) of this section.
Peer Review process changes the Institute may implement are described
in this subsection. The list is not intended to be exhaustive. Any
material changes to the Peer Review process, including those listed
in this subsection, shall be described in the Request for Applications
or communicated to all Grant Applicants.
(1) The Institute may use a preliminary evaluation
process if the volume of Grant Applications submitted pursuant to
a specific Request for Applications is such that timely review may
be impeded. The preliminary evaluation will be conducted after Grant
Applications are assigned to Peer Review Panels but prior to the initial
review described in subsection (c) of this section. The preliminary
evaluation encompasses the following actions:
(A) The criteria and the specific Grant Application
components used for the preliminary evaluation shall be stated in
the Request for Applications;
(B) No less than two Peer Review Panel members are
assigned to conduct the preliminary evaluation for a Grant Application
and provide a preliminary score that conveys the general impression
of the Grant Application's merit pursuant to the specified criteria;
and
(C) The Peer Review Panel chairperson is responsible
for determining the Grant Applications that move forward to initial
review as described in subsection (c) of this section. The decision
will be based upon preliminary evaluation scores. A Grant Application
that does not move forward to initial review will not be considered
further, and the average of the preliminary evaluation scores received
becomes the final Overall Evaluation Score for the Grant Application.
(2) The Institute shall assign all Grant Applications
submitted for recruitment of researchers and clinicians to the Scientific
Review Council.
(A) The Scientific Review Council members review all
components of the Grant Application, evaluate the merits according
to explicit criteria published in the Request for Applications, and,
after discussion by the Review Council members, provide an individual
Overall Evaluation Score that conveys the Review Council member's
recommendation related to the proposed recruitment.
(B) The individual Overall Evaluation Scores are averaged
together for a final Overall Evaluation Score for the Application.
Cont'd... |
