Additional Review Criteria

Writing Guidance:

• Define RCR as the practice of scientific investigation with integrity, including adherence to professional norms and ethical principles in all aspects of research.
• Describe interactive, face-to-face instruction (e.g., lectures, seminars, small-group discussions). Online instruction may supplement but cannot replace in-person training, except in rare circumstances.
• Ensure the plan is tailored to the trainee career stage (predoctoral, postdoctoral).
• Include a broad range of subject matter, such as:
  • Conflict of interest
  • Authorship and publication practices
  • Data acquisition and management
  • Human subjects and animal research
  • Laboratory safety
  • Research misconduct
  • Research ethics
• Clearly describe:
  • Total contact hours
  • Frequency of instruction (at least once every four years and at each career stage)
• Emphasize the role of faculty and mentors as instructors and role models in RCR training.
• Incorporate institutional resources and policies (e.g., UCSD training programs, ethics courses) and adapt them to fit program needs. 

Important Notes:

Scientific rigor is the strict application of the scientific method to ensure unbiased and well-controlled experimental design, methodology, analysis, interpretation and reporting of results.  Scientific rigor also includes transparency in reporting full experimental details so that others may reproduce and extend the findings.

Include:

• A plan describing how trainees will be instructed in principles that enhance research rigor and reproducibility.
• Coverage of the following required areas:
  • Evaluation of foundational research underlying a project (rigor of prior research)
  • Rigorous experimental design and data interpretation
  • Consideration of relevant biological variables (e.g., sex, age)
  • Authentication of key biological and/or chemical resources
  • Transparency in reporting methods and results
• Description of how these topics are integrated across multiple stages of trainee development.
• Explanation of how program faculty reinforce and apply these principles in the context of trainees’ research projects

Writing Guidance:

• Define scientific rigor as the strict application of the scientific method to ensure unbiased design, methodology, analysis, interpretation, and reporting.
• Emphasize training in critical evaluation of published literature, including assessing strengths and limitations of prior studies.
• Describe how trainees will learn to design well-controlled, reproducible experiments and interpret data appropriately.
• Incorporate instruction on:
  • Identifying and controlling for sources of bias
  • Accounting for biological variables
  • Ensuring resource authentication and validation
  • Practicing transparent and complete reporting
• Describe a combination of instructional approaches, such as:
  • Coursework
  • Workshops or seminars
  • Case studies
  • Integration into lab meetings and mentoring
• Explain how faculty mentors will model and reinforce rigor principles during hands-on research training.
• Ensure the plan demonstrates progressive learning, tailored to each trainee’s career stage. 

Include:

• A concise summary of substantial changes made since the prior submission.
• Responses to reviewers’ comments from the previous scientific review.
• For resubmissions involving PD/PI structure changes:
  • A clear rationale for changes (e.g., single PD/PI to MPI, changes in MPI composition, or MPI to single PD/PI)
  • Reference to and inclusion of the required MPI Leadership Plan
• For revision applications:
  • Description of the proposed expansion of the project scope
  • Responses addressing prior review concerns, if applicable

Writing Guidance:

• Clearly and directly address major critiques from the previous review.
• Highlight improvements, additions, or revisions to the application.
• Organize responses to align with reviewer comments for clarity and ease of review.
• For revisions, explain how the proposed changes enhance or extend the original project.
• Ensure explanations are specific, evidence-based, and easy to track.

Include:

• A description of the program’s accomplishments during the previous funding period(s).
• Evidence demonstrating progress toward training objectives and outcomes.
• Documentation of training in the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR).
• Results of program evaluation efforts, including trainee feedback.
• Description of proposed changes or enhancements for the next project period.

 Important Notes:

• Applications must show evidence that:
  • The program is achieving its training objectives
  • Evaluation processes are in place and actively used
  • Feedback from trainees has been incorporated
• Proposed changes for the next funding period should be clearly justified and likely to strengthen the program.
• The program is expected to evolve in response to scientific advances and workforce needs.
• Adequate and ongoing RCR training is required and will be evaluated as part of the renewal.