Review Criteria

Review Criteria2022-03-02T18:03:18+00:00

AR3T pilot grant proposals are evaluated on the basis of (1) scientific merit, (2) the potential impact and significance in the field of Regenerative Rehabilitation, and (3) the potential to leverage future funding. Priority will be given to multidisciplinary proposals including more than one Principal Investigator. We will follow modified NIH R03 review criteria including:

    1. Significance: Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field of Regenerative Rehabilitation? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved for medical regenerative rehabilitation researchers? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions in Regenerative Rehabilitation?
    2. Investigator(s): Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If the project is a collaboration between an external investigator and an investigator from an AR3T laboratory, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise that are likely to lead to continued collaborative efforts in the field of Regenerative Rehabilitation? Do the investigators have an appropriate plan for communicating and collaboratively completing work during the funding period?
    3. Innovation: Does the application challenge and seek to shift current rehabilitation research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing regenerative biology concepts, approaches/methodologies, or instrumentation? Are novel paradigms for synergizing rehabilitation/physical forces and regenerative medicine proposed? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
    4. Approach: Is the proposed development plan well-designed and likely to meet the stated objectives and lead to the anticipated results? Based on the scientific merit of the proposal and the viability of the plan, is it likely that successful completion of the pilot study will generate preliminary data necessary to position the applicant to submit a strong larger-scale proposal?
    5. Environment: Are the institutional support, equipment and other resources adequate for the project proposed? For collaborative projects, will the external investigator benefit from unique protocols, technologies and expertise of the AR3T laboratory?
    6. AR3T-Specific Criteria: Is the project multidisciplinary? Does the proposal fit with the Regenerative Rehabilitation theme? The proposal must include both a regenerative medicine component as well as a rehabilitative/mechanotransduction component.

Based on these criteria, reviewers will score proposals using the NIH scale from 1-9, with ‘1’ being the best. If reviewers identify significant but addressable issues with the proposal, applicants may be asked to respond to comments prior to funding.

Additional Information

Review the application process  for more information.

For questions and/or assistance with proposal development, contact us at