Office of Sponsored Research (OSR)

Competitive Research Grants (CRG) Program - 2017

Non-Disclosure Statement & Merit Review Form

KAUST OSR Conflict-of-Interests and Confidentiality rules must be read and approved by the reviewer
before reading the application research documents. Please review the rules written below and check the
blue box to acknowledge your understanding and agreement.

I have read KAUST OSR Conflict-of-Interests and Confidentiality rules. To the best of my knowledge,
I do not have affiliations or relationships that would prevent me from performing a truthful and
objective merit-based evaluation of the proposal. I understand that I must inform KAUST OSR
(osr.crg@kaust.edu.sa) if a conflict arises while performing the review. I will not divulge or use any
confidential information provided to me.
(Please check the box)

Confidentiality
The research documents that you agree to review and to which you are about to be granted privileged
access shall be considered confidential information and shall not be discussed with any person other
than KAUST OSR staff members. Your involvement in the review of these documents shall be kept
confidential and shall not be disclosed to anyone.

All information provided by KAUST OSR is in strict confidence. The reviewer shall use such information
only for the purpose of carrying out the review and for no other purpose. The information must not be
used by the reviewer for personal benefit or make it available for the personal benefit of any other
individual or organization. As a reviewer you must not copy, quote, or otherwise use or disclose to
anyone, including your graduate students or post-doctoral or research associates, any material from any
of the documents you are asked to review.

Your review shall be anonymous. While the reviews are shared with the proposal applicants, the
identities of the reviewers are not. Any information that would enable the identification of the reviewer
identity shall be excluded from the review.

Conflict-of-Interests
As a reviewer, you shall confirm that you are free from any conflict of interests (“COIs”) whether actual,
apparent or potential that may affect or appear to affect your ability to impartially review the proposal
and thus the integrity of KAUST OSR peer review process.

Examples of most common Conflict-of-Interests are listed below. Conflict-of-Interest, actual, apparent or
potential, shall be declared if any of the following situation applies:

- You have a relationship with a person who has a personal interest in the proposal. For example:

CRG2017 Paper review Form – COI&ND 1

 o The relationship is as a spouse or significant other, child, sibling, or parent.
o The relationship is a business or professional partnership
o The relationship is a Mentor-Mentee relationship (ex-thesis advisor or ex-thesis student)
o You are or have been collaborating on a project or on a book, article, report, papers
within the last 48 months
o You are or have been co-editing of a journal or conference proceedings within the last
24 months.

- You are affiliated with any of the applicants’ school, department, center, institute or college. For
example:
o You are currently employed at one of the applicants’ affiliations as faculty, researcher,
scientist, post-doctoral researchers or fellows, visiting faculty, or similar positions.
o You are acting as consultant or act in an advisory capacity for any of these affiliations.
o You hold previous employment at any of these affiliations in the last 12 months
o You are actively seeking employment with any of these affiliations
o You hold current membership on advisory board or scientific committee related to the
applicants’ department, school, college, institute or center.

- Your objectivity might be affected by relationship such as close personal friendship

The reviewer shall recuse himself/herself from the review of any proposal where the reviewer has an
actual, apparent or potential COI (including FCOI), unless the reviewer obtains from KAUST a written
waiver (email) from the recusal requirement.

If in doubt or unclear, please contact the OSR Team at osr.crg@kaust.edu.sa.

If in the process of reviewing the proposal a new Conflict-of-Interests emerges, please contact the OSR
team immediately at osr.crg@kaust.edu.sa.

CRG2017 Paper review form Page 2

 Office of Sponsored Research (OSR)
Competitive Research Grants (CRG) Program – 2017
Merit Review Form

Project Proposal Title Smart Analytics Infrastructure for the Life Sciences
Principal Investigator (PI) Robert Hoehndorf
Reviewer Name Dr. Amir Hussain
Reviewer Institution University of Stirling

The CRG Program is designed to provide support for exceptional, highly transformative, curiosity-driven
research proposed by KAUST researchers and their global partners.

CRG proposals are evaluated by strictly using global benchmarks such that a rating of “Excellent” or
higher should only be assigned by reviewers if they believe that the project is of the quality that will be
funded by agencies such as the US National Science Foundation, European Research Council, DARPA, etc.
A rating of “Outstanding” corresponding to a score of “8” or higher, on the other hand, should be
reserved for the rare top 5% of all proposals that the reviewer has seen in his/her lifetime.

In order to avoid ratings that may be considered inflated, reviewers are requested to provide
narrative remarks that explain and fully justify the ratings.

This form should be used only if you cannot complete your review online using the web-based
ReviewerConnect tool and login credentials sent to you.

Conflict of Interest
If you have a conflict of interest or a new conflict arises as you review the proposal please recuse
yourself from reviewing this proposal and inform OSR at osr.crg@kaust.edu.sa . If you are unsure please
contact us with the details and we will advise accordingly.

Proposals
Two types of proposal are considered in the CRG program:

 Exploratory. Up to 24 months in duration. Exploratory-type proposals should address early stage

small-scale, short-term, high-reward high-risk research projects.
 Full. Up to 36 months in duration. Full-type proposals should address high-quality, novel,
ambitious and innovative research projects.

Proposals should be appropriate for the category selected.

The inclusion of best-in-class external academic and industrial collaborators (global benchmarks,
publication impact), providing key expertise to the project is expected.

CRG2017 Paper review form Page 3

 Please note: This competition will only succeed in its objectives by benchmarking the proposals we
receive against the very best in the world; as reviewers, we rely on your extensive expertise to
critically review this proposal against the highest global standards and to reflect this in your
review comments and scoring

1. Research Plan
 Is the proposed research innovative, ambitious and of the highest quality by world class standards,
with a significant chance to transform the field of inquiry?
 Is the applicant fully aware of the state of the art in the area of the proposal and are any relevant
preliminary data, studies and results incorporated?
 Does the proposal clearly and concisely describe what the proposed research is intended to
accomplish and how it will accomplish it? Will the methodology and project likely succeed?

Please select your score

Research Plan Ratings

1 Poor Research plan has critical deficiencies

2 Marginal Research plan has serious deficiencies

3 Fair Research plan is lacking in a number of key areas

4 Satisfactory Research plan is adequate

5 Good Research plan is strong but some issues may be addressed

6 Very Good Research plan is strong. Meets global competitiveness standards

7 Excellent Research plan is of high quality. Minor improvements needed

8 Outstanding By global benchmark, the research plan is highly competitive

By global benchmark, the research plan is exceptional and innovative in all
9 Exceptional
aspects
10 Perfect Perfect in all respects – Meets and Exceeds the highest global standards

CRG2017 Paper review form Page 4

Please give a rationale for your assessment, outlining strengths and weaknesses.

Text field for your comments on “Research Plan” section

Strengths:

The proposed project is innovative.

Weaknesses:
It seems that there is no preliminary study conducted in the relevant filed. The proposal seems
to be missing the review of state of the art in the relevant field. It is obvious what they want to
perform but how that would be performed need elaboration. It requires a lot of back ground
study and proper work plan.

2. Research Team
 Has the necessary expertise been assembled to successfully complete the project?
 Is the research team amongst the best in the world in carrying out the proposed research?
 If Sub awardees and/or collaborators are involved, are they the best in class in their field (e.g.,
publications, high citation impact, world-renowned) and bring key expertise to the project?
 Is there a credible plan to enhance the participation of women and engage and mentor the graduate
students and post-docs?

Please select your score

Research Team Rating

2 Poor The Applicant and research team have many significant weaknesses.

4 Fair The Applicant and research team have some strengths but many weaknesses.

6 Good The Applicant and research team are strong but lacking in some critical aspects.

8 Very Good This is a very high quality applicant with best-in-class external collaborators.

10 Excellent This is a rare and exceptional research team.

CRG2017 Paper review form Page 5

Please give a rationale for your assessment, outlining any strengths and weaknesses

Text field for your comments on “Research Team” section

Strengths:

Robert Hoehndorf has excellent back ground in relevant research field.

Weaknesses:

PI will involve students in the research project, which may be able to complete it. But
I can see that project’s scope is appropriate for research students.

3. Reasonableness of Proposal Budget (note: KAUST has no overhead

charges)
 Does the project require the number of research staff, students and operating funds requested?
 Are the sub-awards and corresponding budgets justified by the proposal goals?
 Is the overall Proposal Budget commensurate with the research effort proposed and outcome
anticipated, and would you consider this reasonable in your own funding environment?
 Is there a reasonable way to cut cost and still deliver the outcome?

Please select your score

Research Budget Rating

1 Poor Unreasonably excessive and inappropriate justifications

2 Marginal

3 Fair Can be substantially reduced

4 Satisfactory

5 Good Budget can be improved with some reduction

6 Very Good

7 Excellent Budget is commensurate with effort. Justifications are acceptable

8 Outstanding

CRG2017 Paper review form Page 6

 9 Exceptional Budget is carefully thought out and fully justified

10 Perfect

Please give a rationale for your assessment, outlining any strengths and weaknesses

Text field for your comments on “Research Budget” section

Strengths:

The number of research students and funds requested are appropriate.

Weaknesses:

4. Overall Proposal Recommendation and Comments

 Taking into consideration all the review criteria, emphasizing the Research Plan and Team, and
benchmarking against proposals evaluated by top funding agencies (e.g., NSF, ERC, DARPA, DOE,
etc.), how do you rate the Proposal overall?

Please select your score

Overall Proposal Rating
1 Poor

2 Marginal Not fundable - Proposal has serious deficiencies

3 Fair

4 Satisfactory Low funding priority. Proposal is just adequate

5 Good

6 Very Good High funding priority. Proposal is very strong

7 Excellent

8 Outstanding Highest funding priority. Globally highly competitive

9 Exceptional
Fund! Proposal is exceptionally transformative and exceeds the highest global
10 Perfect
standards

CRG2017 Paper review form Page 7

Text field for your summary comments on the overall proposal
4

Strengths:

It can be considered as post graduate level research project.

Weaknesses:
I would recommend, providing a methodology inside, as well has work plan for further justifying the
project strength.

Proposal Rating
How would you rate this proposal against the best proposals you have reviewed over the past three
years in all competitive funding calls?

Top 10% Top 25% but outside top 10% Top 50% but outside top 25% Bottom 50%

CRG2017 Paper review form Page 8