Review Process & Criteria
Proposals will be reviewed by a panel of 10 geoscientists with a broad range of backgrounds familiar with the
application of geochronologic techniques. Decision making during review will use an open and consensus-based
two-stage approach. At least two members of the review committee will score each proposal with the rubric of
criteria, and the two scores (normalized to each panelist's mean review score) will be summed, yielding a
list of projects. This phase will be followed by group discussion, and then a second stage of more intense
and ranking of proposals in the top third. The panel will evaluate the diversity of techniques, labs, and types
science in the top suite of proposals to ensure that there is breadth in the funded proposal pool. Funding
decisions will be made the goal of broadening community participation and promoting new collaborations. The
panel will then make the final list of awardees and their support levels.
Conflicts of interest will be addressed openly at the start of the review process. Proposals and reviewer
will be inaccessible for conflicted reviewers.
Proposals will be evaluated based on their overall significance, intellectual merit, project design, potential
fostering new research collaborations, and promotion of new analytical skill acquisition by the student.
Reviewers will use a point system that weights the relative importance of each category and allows for direct
comparison of multiple proposals. The panel may decide to partially fund proposals. All proposals must
all of the following requirements and must include all of the requested application materials to be considered
- Overall significance and intellectual merit: 35 points
General quality of the proposed research, including its scope, importance, and relevance to NSF-EAR
Clarity of the proposal’s central question or hypothesis.
- Project design: 25 points
General likelihood that the research will be able to answer the central question or hypothesis of the
produce useful results. Considerations can include the choice of technique, sampling strategy, and
proposed methods are well-established or experimental. AGeS is willing to fund well-designed,
- Coordination, timeline, and budget: 10 points
Assessment of the proposed timeline and budget, specifically considering the time required for sample
and preparation, training, analysis, and interpretation. This criterion relies partially on good
between the proponent and the hosting facility, evaluated based on the student proposal, the clarity of
plan, and the support letters. Budgetary considerations can include the availability of other sources
- Potential for fostering the acquisition of new geochronology skills by the student: 15 points
The extent to which this research provides a new and otherwise unavailable opportunity for the student
experience with and training in analytical work and geochronology.
- Potential for fostering new research collaborations: 15 points
The degree to which this research will create new partnerships and opportunities, including
different institutions and/or research groups.
AGeS awardee Stephen Nguyen (Texas Tech) pondering his project.