Summary

    Review of all AGeS3 proposals will be accomplished by a rotating 10-member review committee. Reviewer feedback is provided on every submitted proposal. The review criteria and evaluation rubrics will be made available before each proposal deadline for Grad, DiG, and TRaCE. The criteria are refined annually based on program evaluation and feedback from the review committee. Following each review cycle, a review context statement will be made available that includes details of the review process as well as the numbers of submitted and funded proposals. The Geological Society of America provides key logistical support for the proposal submission and review process.

     

    Decision-making uses an open and consensus-based multi-stage approach. At least 2 members of the review committee will score each proposal with the rubric, and the two scores (normalized to each panelist’s mean review score) will be summed, yielding a ranked list of projects. This phase will be followed by group discussion, and then a second stage of more intense review and ranking of proposals in the top third. Funding decisions will be made with explicit sensitivity to unconscious bias and BAJEDI issues, and with the goal of broadening community participation and promoting new collaborations. Unanimous support by the review committee of final rankings and awards will be sought, as has been achieved in all past AGeS proposal cycles.

     

    The review committee is expected to assess these questions through a BAJEDI framework. We recognize that the future of geoscience will be strengthened by broad participation.

    Conflicts of Interest

    Conflicts of interest are addressed openly at the start of the review process. Proposals and reviewer comments are inaccessible for conflicted reviewers. Conflicts of interest include:                    

    • Supervisors of the proponent
    • AGeS labs on the proposal
    • Individuals at the same institution as the proponent or AGeS lab
    • Individuals collaborating with the proponent or AGeS lab on other project(s), including:
      1. being part of a currently supported team

      2. having pending proposals with the proponent or AGeS lab

      3. having published with the the proponent or AGeS lab in the last 4 years

      4. would not be surprised to be a co-author and/or listed in the acknowledgements if this proposed research were published

    • Former advisers/advisees of the proponent, less than 10 years ago

    • Feeling that there could be a perception of conflict for any other reason