Applications will be initially reviewed and scored by 2 Scientific Review Committee members based on a one-page specific aims summary using the provided template. The 20 highest scoring applicants will then be invited to submit a detailed five-page research proposal.

The Scientific Review Committee will then review and score the 20 detailed proposals and discuss each one individually at length during a review meeting where awardees and runners up are then selected by consensus.

All applications that make it through to this final stage are highly competitive and will receive feedback outlining their research proposals strengths and areas for development regardless of whether they are selected for an award.

In their evaluation, the Committee will consider the following criteria:

Criterion 1: Evaluation of the Applicant

• Potential for a career in Public Health focused on either HIV or viral hepatitis related research
• Academic record
• Prior training, research experience, and/or publications

Criterion 2: Evaluation of the Mentor Support and Mentoring Plan

A mentor is someone who makes a commitment to your research career. They should be responsible for guiding not only your research proposal but also your application for funding and help you with your professional development and advancement.

As mentorship can come from different people for different aspects of your research career, we do allow co-mentorship although ask that one of your mentors be located within your institution. 

• Letter of support from mentor(s) which includes: mentor's track record of productivity, funding, and success with prior trainees; detailed description of the mentoring plan, including resources allocated to the proposed research project, provision of protected time, and available laboratory facilities (if relevant)
• The mentor(s) is an independent investigator
• The mentor(s) has the experience to direct the proposed research training, as evidenced by the letter of support
• The mentoring training plan and mentor-mentee realtionship is sufficient to facilitate the applicant's progress towards their research career goals
• Letter of support from the department chair, public health institution, or division chief to document that the institution/public health research organization, is willing and has the ability to commit the resources necessary for the applicant to complete the proposed research, including sufficient protected time

It’s important that your mentor reviews your research proposal and associated documentation before submission to ensure it is at the highest standard and submitted error free. 

For more guidance on what good mentorship looks like, the National Institutes of Health, in the United States has some helpful resources here.

Criterion 3: Evaluation of the Proposal

• Innovation and Significance: The research proposal is new and original and addresses an important question/issue related to Public Health. The proposed study will have an effect on concepts, methods, and/or technologies related to Public Health research 
• Approach: The conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses are adequately developed, well-integrated, well-reasoned, feasible (as determined by preliminary data or the expertise available), and appropriate to the aims of the project. The applicant acknowledges potential problem areas and considers alternative tactics
• Feasibility: The project, as described in the submitted proposal and budget, can be accomplished within the timeframe of the award