Scientific Peer Review

All complete LOIs and applications will be peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers with relevant expertise. The reviewers will be primarily selected from the pool of Tufts CTSI Scientific Review Committee members, which includes past Tufts CTSI award recipients. They may also include reviewers from Tufts CTSI partner organizations and Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) External Reviewer Consortium (CEREC) II, of which Tufts CTSI is a part. The review process will follow NIH guidelines for peer review using the criteria listed below.

Translational Challenge and Opportunity Identification – Evaluates the clarity, relevance, and potential impact of the translational challenge or opportunity the project seeks to address.

  1. Is the translational challenge, roadblock, or opportunity clearly defined and well-articulated?
  2. Does the project address critical unmet needs or unexplored pathways in translational science?

Innovation and Scalability – Assesses the originality, interdisciplinary collaboration, and potential scalability of the proposed solutions.

  1. Does the project propose an innovative solution to the identified challenge or opportunity that could advance the science of translation?
  2. Can the project’s findings be adapted and scaled for implementation in diverse real-world settings?
  3. Does the project engage relevant non-academic partners and interest-holders to enhance translational research impact?
  4. Is there a clear, actionable plan for disseminating results beyond traditional academic channels and facilitating adoption in various settings?

Proof-of-Concept Study Design – Evaluates the rigor, appropriateness, and potential impact of the proposed study design.

  1. Is the study design well-constructed, with appropriate methodologies to address the research questions?
  2. Is there a strong rationale for the chosen methods, including data analysis techniques?
  3. Does the proposal address potential challenges and outline alternative strategies?
  4. Will the project contribute to translational science, even if the initial objectives are not fully met (e.g., through insights gained from unexpected outcomes)?

Feasibility – Assesses the practicality of the project concerning the timeline, budget, and resource availability.

  1. Is the project realistic and achievable within the 12-month timeframe and $50,000 budget?
  2. Are the necessary resources, expertise, and skills in place to support successful project execution?
  3. Does the project have a well-defined management and organizational strategy?

Overall Impact and Advancement of Translational Science – Evaluates the project’s potential to produce significant advancements in the science of translation with a focus on long-term impact and sustainability.

  1. How likely is the project to contribute to significant advancements in translational research and/or improve clinical care or health outcomes?
  2. Does the project have the potential to generate broadly applicable and sustainable outcomes?
  3. Is there a clear pathway to real-world application and broader scientific impact?

Tufts CTSI Stakeholder Expert Panel Review

All applicants invited to submit a full proposal must develop a plan for engaging relevant interest holder groups, including in dissemination activities. This plan, included as part of the full proposal, will be reviewed separately by at least two members of the Tufts CTSI Stakeholder Expert Panel. Composed of community members with diverse professional and cultural backgrounds, the panel will evaluate the applicant’s ability to identify relevant interest holder groups, align the project and its outcomes with the interests, priorities, and broader concerns of these groups, and implement a rigorous and effective engagement strategy.

Interest Holder Identification – Assesses the applicant’s ability to identify relevant interest holder groups and define their roles in the research project and result dissemination.

  1. Are key interest holders clearly identified, including those who can inform and participate in dissemination and implementation, with sufficient detail to understand their roles in the project?
  2. Does the plan provide a strong rationale for engaging the identified interest holder groups throughout the project and in future dissemination and/or implementation activities?
  3. Does the plan describe involvement of historically underrepresented groups, such as those from underserved, under-resourced, marginalized, and/or hard-to-reach communities?
  4. If applicable, does the plan describe how the identified interest holders were involved in the project’s conceptualization and research design?

Relevance – Evaluates the alignment of the project and its outcomes with the interests, priorities, and broader concerns of identified groups and the public.

  1. Does the plan clearly articulate the project’s relevance and value to the identified interest holders and/or specific populations, supported by logical reasoning?
  2. How will these interest holders and/or populations benefit from the research outcomes, and does the plan include strategies for appropriate follow-up?
  3. If successful, how likely is it that the project’s outcomes will be disseminated and applied beyond traditional academic channels?

Engagement Approach – Assesses the rigor and effectiveness of the proposed plan for interest holder engagement in achieving project objectives.

  1. Does the engagement plan align with and support the overall objectives of the research project, including the application of interest holders’ knowledge and expertise?
  2. Does the plan demonstrate intentional and meaningful involvement of the identified interest holder groups and outline how they will contribute to identifying factors affecting future dissemination and implementation?
  3. Does the engagement strategy foster strong, collaborative relationships based on mutual trust, and include a communication strategy that is adequate and tailored to each interest holder group?
  4. Is the plan realistic and flexible, with a high likelihood of successful implementation within the project’s timeframe and budget, and adaptable to changing circumstances?

Funding Decision and Announcement

Final funding decisions will be made by the Tufts CTSI Senior Leadership Team based on recommendations of the Scientific Review Committee with input of Stakeholder Expert Panel. Key funding considerations include the overall impact score, project feasibility, clear strategy and intentional focus on health equity, budget justification, available funds, and distribution across the translational spectrum. A minimum of four and a maximum of six research projects will be funded. The final number of awards will be dependent on the volume of meritorious applications received and their individual budget requirements. All applicants will be informed of the outcome of their submission via email. Reviewers’ comments will be provided to all primary applicants, regardless of whether or not they are awarded funding.

Research Collaboration Team Review

In addition to review by the S-GATS Program Scientific Review Committee and Tufts CTSI Program Leaders, applications may be reviewed by the Tufts CTSI Research Collaboration Team to identify projects for further development and submission to other funding announcements, and/or to identify potential collaborators. Applicants may be contacted by Tufts CTSI Navigators or other members of the Research Collaboration Team for future research opportunities.

Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure

All applications will be treated as proprietary and confidential. Efforts will be made to safeguard them against unauthorized use and any disclosure beyond Tufts CTSI and the 2025 S-GATS review committees.

Questions?

We are here to help. Please contact us at sgats@tuftsmedicine.org.