Proposals are peer reviewed by faculty committees formed specifically to align with discipline areas represented by the applicant pool. Proposal assignment to a committee is determined by a number of factors, including discipline and proposed technical approaches; keywords provided by applicants are important to this process.
Applicants may recommend reviewers at UGA, but should not assume that those reviewers will be available. Service on review committees is voluntary. Therefore, in preparing a proposal for this program, applicants should remember that the review subcommittees cannot include specialists in every field. Thus, proposals must communicate the significance of the work to scholars from other disciplines. Moreover, a basic summary description of the experimental approach(es) that renders them understandable to scientists from other departments and disciplines should be included. Note that this is different from submissions to most external funders, where panels are likely to include (or are entirely composed of) researchers close to the discipline. Taking this into consideration, a pared down version of even a strong external grant application may not be a strong FSG.
Reviewers assess the following criteria to generate proposal scores.
- Does the proposal communicate the importance of the work and the enthusiasm of the proposer?
- Have the proposal format guidelines (especially page limits) been followed?
- Is the importance of the project within its field made clear?
- Is the field one that is, or should be, within the scope of the University’s research program?
- Will successful completion of the project have an impact upon the field?
- Is the project significant to the development of a program of scholarly activity by the proposer?
- Does the proposer have the necessary background and expertise?
- Are the objectives clearly defined, and is the basic question to be answered clearly identified?
- Is the proposed work feasible and are expected outcomes adequately described and realistic?
- Are project activities well planned, and do they realistically fall within an appropriate timetable?
- Are all necessary facilities available?
- Have all requested items been justified?
- Is the amount requested reasonable and consistent with the total funding available to this grant program?
- If equipment is requested, has the possibility that it is already available elsewhere on campus been addressed? An explanation why the equipment wasn’t provided upon hiring should be included.
- If support for graduate students is requested, is it clear that their activities are essential to the proposed research program?
Appropriateness to the Program
- Is the proposal consistent with the “seed money” concept, which gives faculty an opportunity to initiate new programs of research?
- Will the proposed project lead to further funding from external sources?
- Would it be more appropriate for this proposal to be submitted directly to an external sponsor?
Notifications are typically available by the end of May. Notification, however, is dependent on the proposal review timeline, which is dictated by peer reviewer availability.
Funds are available on July 1 of the fiscal year following proposal review and selection.
Funds not used within the award year will be forfeited unless a one-time request for a one-year extension is submitted and approved by May 1 of the first budget year. Email Danielle Pierce (firstname.lastname@example.org) to request an extension, justifying why the project could not be completed during the grant period and detailing the plan to complete the project in the second year.
If, prior to a FSG being awarded, external funding is obtained to support any of the proposed items or activities, in whole or in part, the grantee must promptly notify Office of Research at email@example.com.
It is expected that those who receive a FSG will continue to meet the eligibility requirements. Any grant recipient who, because of resignation or any other reason, fails to remain eligible at least through June 30 of the award year may be required to return the grant funds.
Funds are to be spent as outlined in the approved budget and justification that are submitted with the original proposal. If changes are required, a budget reallocation request must be submitted and approved before major changes in budget will be allowed. In the request, FSG recipients must clearly justify how the budget changes are still for the purpose of the original project that was funded. Requests may be emailed to firstname.lastname@example.org.
FSG recipients are expected to use the funding to generate pilot data that is then leveraged to compete for extramural funding opportunities.
Recipients will be expected to sign an acceptance letter certifying commitment to utilizing the grant support as intended by Office of Research and as proposed, adhering to the proposed budget, and fulfilling all Office of Research requirements for progress and final reports.
Yes. The Office for Proposal Enhancement, headed by Jake Maas, provides a number of services designed to increase the competitiveness of UGA investigators’ proposals for extramural funding. FSG recipients are especially encouraged to participate in OPE’s Peer Review program (for NIH R01/R21 and NSF CAREER proposals) and Mock NIH Panels. Individual assistance is also available; contact OPE as early as possible for more information and guidance at email@example.com.
By accepting an FSG award, the recipient certifies understanding and agrees to comply with Office of Research reporting requirements. Failure to comply may negatively impact eligibility for future funding opportunities offered by Office of Research. At the end of the funding period, FSG recipients will receive an email containing a link to an initial report survey which captures information regarding activities and results obtained during the grant period. At the end of the following fiscal year, a similar emailed survey for the final report will collect information on publications and grant proposals generated as a result of the grant.
Funds for awarded FSGs come from the University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. Any publications resulting from the supported project should acknowledge the source of funds: “(a portion of) this research was supported by a grant from the University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc.”