top of page

Reviewer guide

Updated: Jan 13, 2023

The reviewing process is intended to be straightforward and efficient. The intent is to enable completion of an application review in ~5-10 minutes. You are asked to rate applications based on four criteria: significance, likelihood of success, appropriateness of requested services, and need. Each has three possible scores (high, medium, and low), and reviewers will assign a ranking based on the applicants submitted materials. Below are descriptors for each of the criteria

  1. Significance: Rank the application based on the scientific significance of the project. Assuming that proposed services are successful, does the project address a problem or critical barrier to progress in the field or have the ability to improve knowledge in the given field?

  2. Likelihood of success: Based on the preliminary data and proposed services, rank the project based on whether it will have a reasonable chance of success. Likelihood of success should be judged differently based on which access track applicants apply to. For instance for the Specimen Preparation and Screening track, researchers would not necessarily be expected to have extensive preliminary cryo-EM data but should have biochemical evidence for a reasonably concentrated non-aggregated sample. For the High-Throughput Data Collection track, researchers should have, at minimum, 2D class averages that provide evidence that the sample will benefit from high-throughput data collection.

  3. Appropriateness of requested services: Based on the proposed services, rank the project on whether the services requested are appropriate for the applicant's goals.

  4. Need: Rank the project based on the needs of the applicant for the requested services. Please base your rankings on the following criteria.

    1. Location: The SECM4 is intended to primarily serve researchers in the Southeast broadly defined, but we will take applications from anywhere. Nonetheless, priority should be given to Southeastern researchers.

    2. Available equipment: The availability of equipment at the applicant's home university should be taken into consideration

A field is given at the bottom of the review page to provide applicants with feedback on their applications and strengths and weaknesses.

The overall score will be the average of the criterion rankings where high=1, medium=2, and low=3. Thus, project scores will range from 1 (highest priority) to 3 (lowest priority).

95 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page