Note: The Polar Continental Shelf Program (PCSP) Project Review Committee (PRC) Scoring Guide has changed. Please take the time to review the revised guide carefully to ensure you are familiar with the changes.
The PCSP PRC reviews and evaluates logistics requests submitted to the PCSP by university applicants. The review process is based on the PRC Scoring Guide, which includes three criteria: 1) quality of the application, 2) feasibility of the requested field logistics, and 3) scientific recognition and impact.
For more information regarding the PCSP review process for university applicants, please contact the PCSP.
Polar Continental Shelf Program Project Review Committee Scoring Guide
| 0 | 10 | 20 | 30 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quality of the application (15) |
- Difficult to understand and disorganized with substantial information gaps - Proposed research project description and research objectives are unclear - Proposal overlaps with collaborators’ projects without a clear explanation of key differences or rationale for separate applications - Impact and importance of the work are not clearly evident |
- Somewhat difficult to understand and disorganized with information gaps - Proposed research project description is adequately described and research objectives are reasonably clear - Impact and importance of the work are evident |
- Intelligible and organized with few information gaps - Proposed research project description and research objectives are clearly described - Impact and importance of the work are clearly evident and the research has clear benefits |
- Well written, organized and comprehensive - Proposed research project description is well described and research objectives are clear and strong - Impact and importance of the work are clearly evident and the research is influential or groundbreaking |
|
Awards and grants (10) |
- Awards/grants are not from a competitive process that evaluates scientific excellence or - No awards/grants secured |
- Some awards/grants are from a competitive process that evaluates scientific excellence - Number of awards/grants and/or their monetary value and/or prestige are low - Key awards/grants are pending |
- Some awards/grants are from a competitive process that evaluates scientific excellence - Number of awards/grants and/or their monetary value and/or their prestige are moderate - Some key awards/grants are secured |
- Many awards/grants are from a competitive process that evaluates scientific excellence - Number of awards/grants and/or their monetary value and/or their prestige are high - Most or all key awards/grants are secured |
|
Publication record (10) |
- Publications are very limited for the discipline or not relevant to the proposed research project |
- Publications are limited for the discipline and the papers listed are in low-impact journals - Most publications are not relevant to the proposed research project |
- Publications are reasonable for the discipline and some of the papers listed are in higher impact journals - Most publications are relevant to the proposed research project |
- Publications are extensive for the discipline and many papers listed are in high-impact journals - Publications are relevant to the proposed research project |
|
Student involvement (including postdoctoral fellows) (10) |
- No student involvement or - No explanation provided for lack of student involvement |
- Only one grad student enrolled at a Canadian institution or a few students from international institutions involved in a somewhat meaningful way - Research plans for the student (if applicable) are described adequately or - Acceptable explanation provided for the limited student involvement |
- More than one grad student enrolled at a Canadian institution is meaningfully involved - Research plans for students (if applicable) are clearly described or - Good explanation provided for limited student involvement - Good explanation of all student supervision, and explanation of students’ unique contribution to the project, for those listed on multiple applications - Description of which students are going into the field, and which are using data but not going into the field |
- Multiple grad students enrolled at a Canadian institution are meaningfully involved, and include students at higher academic levels (doctoral candidates and postdoctoral fellows) - Research plans for all students (if applicable) are clearly described - Clear explanation of all student supervision, and explanation of students’ unique contribution to the project, for those listed on multiple applications - Description of which students are going into the field, and which are using data but not going into the field |
|
Indigenous and local involvement and engagement (10) |
- No Indigenous or local involvement in the project - No demonstrated or planned Indigenous engagement and/or community consultation or - No explanation provided for lack of Indigenous or local involvement or engagement |
- Limited Indigenous engagement and/or community consultation activities undertaken or - Acceptable explanation provided for limited Indigenous or local involvement or engagement activities |
- Meaningful Indigenous engagement and/or community consultation activities undertaken or - Good explanation provided for limited Indigenous or local involvement or engagement activities |
- High level of meaningful Indigenous engagement and community consultation undertaken - Demonstrates co-development efforts (if applicable) |
|
Equity, diversity and inclusion (10) |
- No explanation for how equity, diversity and inclusion were considered in the research design | - Limited explanation for how equity, diversity and inclusion were considered in the research design | - Good explanation for how equity, diversity and inclusion were considered in the research design | - Comprehensive explanation of how equity, diversity and inclusion were considered in the research design |