Limited Submission Reviewer Expectations

VCRO strives to provide a fair, equitable, and transparent review process and relies on our reviewers to help us achieve that goal. We ask our reviewers to:

  • Disclose any potential conflicts of interest. For the purposes of internal competitions, a conflict of interest is defined as a proposal that involves individuals with whom you have a personal relationship, such as a relative or current or former collaborator, student, or advisor. VCRO will help decide whether to recuse you from a particular application or competition.

  • Keep information confidential. Campus applications are confidential. Please do not share the applications, the information within them, nor the names of the applicants with any other individuals. 

  • Provide equitable scores. Apply the review criteria consistently to all applicants. Please base your scores on any predetermined evaluation criteria from VCRO and on the sponsor’s selection criteria, if available.

  • Be aware of unconscious bias. We all have biases that we are not aware of based on our cognitive framework. Developing awareness of our biases can help to mitigate their effects. Review page 4 of this unconscious bias overview document for a refresher about the common types of unconscious bias 

  • Be constructive when providing review comments. While comments are usually optional, they are highly appreciated by both VCRO and the applicants. Feedback allows applicants to improve their proposals and their research by identifying methodological errors, gaps in knowledge, and improving grantsmanship. If providing feedback, please ensure your comments are constructive and would help the applicant improve any future submissions. 

Review Criteria

Each campus review will have different review criteria for reviewers to consider, based on the criteria from the sponsor's guidelines. VCRO will provide reviewers with specific review criteria for each competition. Generally reviewers are asked to consider responsiveness to the specific program, including the program’s mission and review criteria as stated in the solicitation. Reviewers should also consider adherence to the requirements outlined in the campus announcement. When applicable, reviewers may consider other factors in their evaluations, especially if the reviewers are familiar with the sponsor, its selection processes, and the program funding history.

Scoring Guidance

We usually ask reviewers to rate (not rank) the campus applications on a scale of 1-5 points (5 pts. = exceptional and 1 pt = not recommended). The highest scores should be given to those applications with the greatest potential to be funded. Scores do not have to be whole numbers and it is highly encouraged that you utilize the full point scale.

When reviewing the applications, we encourage reviewers to take into consideration the potential of the application to be improved with feedback prior to the sponsor deadline. A proposal with high potential, despite a few weaknesses, can receive a high score. A proposal that does not align with the program, even if exceptional, can receive a low score.

InfoReady Portal

We use the online competition portal InfoReady to coordinate reviews. Once assigned to a review, reviewers will receive an email with links to access the applications. They should log in with their CalNet ID after following the links. Once logged in, they will be able to view and print the applications and submit the review forms.

In the event of any difficulty accessing review materials, please contact ltdsubs@berkeley.edu. 

Sign up to be a Reviewer

If you are interesting in reviewing campus applications for limited submissions in general or for a particular opportunity, please email us.