Research Development

A 'research roadmap' is a conceptualization or defined actionable plan to guide your research and funding goals. It is a living document that can be reviewed and re-evaluated on a regular basis. In 20FQ, the OSP hosted a workshop titled Developing your Research Funding Roadmap, lead by Kara Luckey, and featuring a panel of SU faculty members whose variety of research pathways has lead them to continued success. Kara shared two potential roadmap templates that may assist you in planning your journey but the presentation slides include a variety of examples - there is no right or wrong way to document your research agenda - whatever works best for you!

• View the workshop recording
• Review the workshop materials and download the roadmap templates 
• Resource: From Research Agenda to Proposal - Tips for Developing NSF Proposals (CADRE)
  • This document was developed fro NSF proposals but can be broadly applied to other proposal opportunities

Open Grants is an open repository of funding proposals - access full grant proposals here (note the right column states whether the proposal was funded, declined or is pending): https://www.ogrants.org/grants-01-all.html 

Additionally, many of your SU colleagues have had funded grant proposals - we are happy to reach out to funded faculty to inquire about sharing their grant proposal with you for the same or a similar funder/program. Please contact OSP for samples!

Seattle University's Center for Faculty Development (CFD) offers a range of services to support faculty in their research practices.

"Research practice" refers to the process of conducting and publishing research, rather than the research topic itself. The Center helps faculty refine their strategies and approaches to conducting and writing research. Grounded in a research-based approach, the Center draws from the growing field of "research on research" to address key areas such as:

• Developing and maintaining a writing habit
• Time management for research completion
• Targeting journals and publishers
• Working with editors and responding to reviewers' feedback

The National Center for Faculty Development and Diversity (NCFDD) is an independent professional development, training, and mentoring community for faculty members, postdocs, and graduate students. Seattle University has an institutional membership providing access to all of NCFDD's services including, but not limited to:

• Live webinars and an extensive library of trainings
• The Monday Motivatoris a weekly email that provides positive energy, good vibes, and a productivity tip. The purpose of the weekly message is to reinforce the ideas presented in our Core Curriculum and provide support for individuals as they transition throughout their career.
• Faculty Success Program is a 12-week, online program that was designed to teach tenure-track and tenured faculty the skills they need to increase both their research and writing productivity while maintaining a healthy work-life balance.
• 14-Day Writing Challenge is an opportunity for you to experiment with daily writing in a supportive environment with a little daily dose of electronic love from the NCFDD.

The Center for Faculty Development administers SU's subscription to the National Center for Faculty Development and Diversity - sign up today!

ScholarWorks, a service of Lemieux Library & McGoldrick Learning Commons, is the institutional repository of Seattle University. Showcasing the work of faculty, staff, and students, as well as archival items and unique holdings, ScholarWorks represents Seattle University's commitment to share its intellectual output with the world.

• Review the Seattle University Sponsored Research and Projects Collection to learn more about what projects have been successfully funded, as well as the sponsors funding projects at SU

To be eligible for PREP, all of the following must be true:

• The proposal is a research grant
• The PI has engaged with OSP in some capacity in the last two years (e.g. individual consultations, proposal submissions).
• The PI must commit to providing proposal documents - in close-to-final form - at least 4 weeks in advance of the sponsor's deadline.

The PI must submit an application at least 8weeks prior to the sponsor’s proposal deadline. Upon receipt, the OSP will review the application to confirm eligibility and adequate timeline, and will make selections on a rolling basis until funding for the fiscal year has been exhausted. Your divisional Sponsored Research Officer (SRO) will contact you within 2 business days regarding the outcome of your application; and if selected, next steps. If selected and you do not already have a reviewer in mind, your SRO will research past recipients of this award/program/sponsor and will provide a list of potential reviewers from which the investigator will prioritize preference. Your SRO will contact the reviewer about the commitment, timeline, and associated compensation ($300) for completing review of your proposal.

• 8 weeks (minimum) prior to sponsor proposal deadline - Investigator submits PREP application, notifying OSP of intention to seek external peer review via Qualtrics form. OSP then works with PI to identify preferred reviewers.
• 6 weeks (minimum) prior to sponsor deadline – OSP contacts preferred reviewers and communicates commitment, timeline, and compensation.
• 4 weeks (minimum) prior to sponsor deadline – Investigator provides close-to-final proposal documents to OSP for transmittal to external peer reviewer. Feedback is requested from the reviewer within 10 business-days. 
• 2 weeks prior to sponsor deadline – Internal reviews begin. Feedback must already be incorporated into proposal.

The more time provided, the more time you will have to identify a suitable reviewer and incorporate the feedback received.

Please complete this Airtable form to be added to the Scholarship Database.

• American Council of Learned Societies

Peer review is a vital part of the work of the American Council of Learned Societies. Each year, we recruit over 600 reviewers with expertise in disciplines from across humanistic studies to evaluate fellowship and grant applications and select new cohorts of awardees. Our reviewers include scholars, librarians, curators, public humanities leaders, and others whose perspectives and expertise allow them to identify promising research by scholars at all career stages. 

• Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)

Participants will review and score 10-20 applications within a 2-week period.  If you are interested in becoming a peer reviewer, please submit an up-to-date resume or curriculum vitae, including a valid e-mail address, to: Byrne.Discretionary@usdoj.gov. Please put "Peer Reviewer Candidate Resume" in the subject line.

• Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Program (OJP), DOJ

To access this information on their website, click the arrow to the right of "www.ojp.usdoj.gov" that is located underneath Office of Justice Programs. OJP actively seeks qualified individuals to join the pool of subject matter experts it calls upon to review the strengths and weaknesses of applications for grant funding. Whether you are selected to review applications for a particular solicitation is based on factors such as subject matter expertise, demographics (such as your position title and geographic location), and prior experience as a reviewer. Generally, reviewers have 2-4 weeks to review and evaluate 10–30 applications and participate in a consensus call, webinar, or in-person peer review that lasts from 1-2 days. Reviews are conducted primarily in late winter and spring.

• Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS)

Reviewers include practitioners, educators, administrators/managers, analysts, researchers, funders, entrepreneurs, evaluators, and board members. In line with the agency’s Strategic Plan and in order to address the needs of several specialized programs, CNCS is particularly looking for individuals with backgrounds in the agency Focus Areas: Education, Environmental Stewardship, Economic Opportunity, Disaster Services, and Veterans and Military Families.

Once you have completed an application in eGrants, and your background is appropriate for a competition, a CNCS representative contacts you by e-mail to check on your availability to participate in that review.

• Department of Education - Office of Postsecondary Education

The primary responsibilities of reviewers are to participate in the OPE program orientations and trainings, and to read and evaluate applications. This is done utilizing U.S. Department of Education scoring and selection criteria worksheets, forms and documents prepared for the review, as well as participating in discussions with fellow reviewers when applicable. Each reviewer must commit to providing detailed, objective, constructive, and timely written reviews for each assigned application. These reviews will be used to recommend applications for funding. They will also be shared with each applicant following the reviews; reviewers are anonymous and are not identified to applicants. 

• Department of Labor (DOL)

The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) seeks a diverse pool of expertise from the workforce system, institutions of higher education, community and faith-based organizations, labor, business and industry partners, and other related organizations to review and score applications along with federal staff. Selected panelists must make a commitment to be available for the preparation work leading up to the paneling, which could last as long as two weeks. The estimated workload for selected panelists in reviewing and evaluating grants is between 10 and 15 applications.

• Department of State - Fulbright Core Scholars Program

The peer review process, a hallmark of the Fulbright U.S. Scholar program, ensures that applicants are evaluated on academic, scholarly, and professional criteria. IIE coordinates this screening of Fulbright U.S. Scholar applications for the Fulbright Scholar Program. Applications recommended following the peer review process are then considered by the host country, the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, and the U.S. Department of State (Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs).

• Department of Transportation

Expert peer panel volunteers are critical to the success of the TMIP Peer Review Program. Serving on a TMIP peer review expert panel provides practitioners with a unique opportunity to shape the advancement of modeling practices and participate in a valuable peer networking and knowledge sharing experience. If you have an interest in volunteering to serve on an expert peer panel contact the TMIP Moderator for more details.

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Peer Review Division (PRD) finds qualified reviewers through a variety of sources, including the NCER database, known as Peer Reviewer Information System (PRIS). This is an internal database used only by EPA and is not open to the public. Technical experts may nominate themselves for inclusion in PRIS by sending an e-mail request including a brief CV to Benjamin Packard (packard.benjamin@epa.gov) of EPA. If you are selected to be a reviewer, you will be required to immediately obtain a Data Universal Number System (DUNS) number and register in System for Award Management (SAM).

• Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) at U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

All professionals working in or knowledgeable about Health Care Services are invited to register in the Reviewer Recruitment Module database (RRM).   HRSA wishes to identify more qualified reviewers who have expertise in social, cultural or health care issues of rural, migrant or Native American populations. Register in the RRM if you are interested in lending your expertise in any of these fields to our application review process.

• Institute of Education Sciences

IES needs peer reviewers for research grant peer review panels and for the review of reports to be published by IES. Potential reviewers are identified for specific review activities on the basis of the match between their expertise and experience and the review needs at any given time. The specific requirements will vary across different review activities.

• Institute of Museum and Library Science (IMLS)

All proposals submitted for IMLS competitive awards are reviewed by library and museum professionals who know the needs of communities, can share promising practices, and are well versed in the issues and concerns of museums and libraries today. Peer reviewers dedicate their time and expertise to advance the highest professional practices in the field. The IMLS review process is well respected, and the success of our grant programs is largely due to the expertise of our reviewers.

• National Endowment for the Arts

Arts Endowment panelists play a central role in reviewing applications for funding. We rely on panels composed of individuals who represent a broad range of artistic and cultural viewpoints, as well as wide geographic and ethnic diversity, to provide advice about the artistic excellence and artistic merit of proposals in a variety of funding categories. Our panels are composed of both arts professionals and knowledgeable laypersons. Most panelists are arts professionals who are qualified by their activities, training, skills, and/or experience in one or more art forms. Every panel also includes a layperson – someone knowledgeable about the arts but not engaged in the arts as a profession either full- or part-time. We maintain a database to help us identify and select panelists.

• National Endowment for the Humanities

We are always looking for scholars, cultural institution leaders, humanities center staff, and other experts to serve as peer reviewers. The NEH may use the information you provide to consider your candidacy for service on a peer review panel, and may also use that information to contact you to request your participation on a peer review panel.

• National Institutes of Health

Individuals who possess expertise in areas supported by the NIH and who wish to volunteer to serve in the NIH peer review process should send an email to the Enhancing Peer Review mailbox (ReviewerVolunteer@mail.nih.gov) with a brief description of their areas of expertise in the body of the email (1-2 sentences) and a copy of their biosketch as an attachment.

• NIH - Early Career Reviewer

The program aims to help early career scientists become more competitive as grant applicants through first-hand experience with peer review and to enrich and diversify CSR’s pool of trained reviewers.

• National Science Foundation

To become an NSF reviewer, send an e-mail to the NSF program officer(s) of the program(s) that fits your expertise. Introduce yourself and identify your areas of expertise, and let them know that you are interested in becoming a peer reviewer. It is most helpful if you also attach a 2-page CV with current contact information.

• Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) invites researchers and practitioners with expertise related to juvenile justice to apply to serve as peer reviewers for its competitive grant applications. Applicants should indicate their juvenile justice-related knowledge and experience, including: gangs, mentoring, girls' delinquency, children's exposure to violence, substance abuse, tribal juvenile justice, Internet crimes against children, and more. 

To apply, e-mail a current résumé or curriculum vitae to OJPPeerReview@lmbps.com. Write "Peer Reviewer Candidate" in the subject line. OJJDP will compensate peer reviewers for their time and effort.

• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). 

If you have specific, documented experience in areas related to the current Requests for Applications (RFAs), it will greatly increase the likelihood that SAMHSA may select you as a peer reviewer. Complete an online application form which will be reviewed. Time commitments vary, depending on the grants under review and the number assigned. Note that any time commitment will require a concentrated focus over a short period of time, usually about two weeks.

• The Spencer Foundation

The Spencer Foundation manages their peer reviewers through the Foundation’s portal.  Potential reviewers indicate that they are willing to volunteer and their expertise in their personal profiles.