Review Criteria

Review Criteria2018-06-19T14:12:08+00:00

AR3T Technology Development proposals will be evaluated on the basis of scientific merit, the potential impact and significance in the field of Regenerative Rehabilitation, and the potential to develop a novel technology that addresses the needs of the regenerative rehabilitation research community. 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 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 mechanotransduction 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 study will result in technology that will be useful to the greater regenerative rehabilitation research community?
  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: The proposal must include both a regenerative medicine component as well as a mechanotransduction component.