Review Process
Reviewing Guidelines
Projects will be scored from 0-9 (0=lowest; 9=highest) based on their potential for transition from discovery research to translational development through preliminary work or feasibility studies. Please refer to the guidance provided for each section when completing your application.
Panel scores and definitions:
|
Score |
Score definitions |
|
9 |
The application is exceptional; it very strongly meets all of the assessment criteria to the highest standard. The panel agrees that it is difficult to articulate how the application could be improved. |
|
8 |
The application is outstanding; it very strongly meets all of the assessment criteria. |
|
7 |
The application is excellent; it strongly meets all of the assessment criteria. |
|
6 |
The application is very good; it meets the assessment criteria well but with some minor weaknesses/limitations. |
|
5 |
The application is good; it meets the assessment criteria well but with some clear weaknesses/limitations. |
|
4 |
The application is adequate; it meets the assessment criteria but with clear weaknesses/limitations. |
|
3 |
The application is weak; it meets the assessment criteria but with significant weaknesses/limitations. |
|
2 |
The application is poor; it meets the assessment criteria but has major weaknesses/limitations. |
|
1 |
The application is unsatisfactory; it does not meet one or more of the assessment criteria. |
|
0 |
The application is unsatisfactory; it does not meet any of the assessment criteria. |
Projects will be assessed on: strength of rationale; quality of science; un-met medical need; future commercial opportunity and clinical implementation into LMIC settings; IP position; likelihood of developing a full proposal to be submitted to external translational award schemes, or similar follow-on funding schemes, within the required timescale and budget. Should ethics and/or home office approvals be required for the projects, priority will be given to those applications that already have these in place.
Please note, the DiTi Panel membership comprises both internal and international academics and external commercial experts to ensure robust, vigorous review in line with funder recommendations. All external members are required to sign a CDA prior to reviewing applications. For further information on Panel membership please see here.