Overview of Grant Review Process
Every AIDS Institute seed grant will be submitted in response to a published RFA. Each RFA provides a specified amount of funding for a specified research program. Prior to submission, applicants are strongly encouraged to consult with RFA PIs, Associate Directors and/or the Consultation Core. In the first stage of formal review, each grant will be peer-reviewed by three faculty investigators, following NIH guidelines for written reviews. The scores for each grant (except for those deemed fatally flawed) will be averaged and those grants falling above the 50th percentile for merit will move forward to the second stage of review. A committee with faculty representatives with expertise in the research represented by each RFA will review those grants in the top 50th percentile. The average scores of all committee members will be tabulated and averaged for each grant application. Grants will be funded in rank order starting from the grant receiving the highest score until funds are exhausted for any given RFA. Any grants funded outside of this process with individual faculty funds will not be considered AIDS Institute-supported research and should be clearly indicated as such.

Mentoring and Pre-Submission Consultation
All applicants are strongly encouraged to consult with the CFAR Consultation Core (Director Gail Wyatt, gwyatt@mednet.ucla.edu) or the appropriate AIDS Institute Associate Director prior to submitting an application.

Grant Review Process
Reviewers will be selected for each seed grant application by the Principal Investigator of the RFA or, if desired, his/her faculty designee. It is understood that reviewers will be selected based upon their expertise to review any given application, as well as their objectivity and integrity in the review process. If there is a conflict of interest, (see below for Conflicts of Interest) such as collaborator or mentor/mentee relationship, the PI of the RFA will recuse themselves from selecting reviewers and request that one of the other Associate Directors select reviewers for that particular application. Three reviewers will be selected for each application. At least two of the reviewers will serve on the Seed Grant Review committee (Note: Due to scheduling, it may not be possible to always have two reviewers on the committee; we may have to settle for one). Scores of the three reviews will be averaged (see Instructions to Reviewers for scoring). "Grants scoring 3.5 to 5.0 (fatally flawed) will not be considered further. Of the remaining grants, those in the top 50th percentile will advance to the second level of review in the Seed Grant Review committee. If there are fewer grant applications than the amount of available funding for a given RFA, applications ranked below the 50th percentile may be advanced in rank order up to the allotted funding amount, except for those grants deemed fatally flawed (>3.5 score). Following committee review and scoring, grants will be funded in rank order until RFA funds are exhausted. Grants receiving scores of >3.5 are deemed fatally flawed and will not be funded."

Example A (many applications)
RFA AAA provides $100,000 in funding at $30,000 per grant. 11 submissions are received and sent for review. 10 receive scores of 1.5 to 2.7. One receives a score of 4.0 and is eliminated. 5 of the remaining 10 applications advance to the second level of review. Of the 5, 3 grants will eventually be funded provided the final committee score is less than 3.5.

Example B (few applications)
RFA BBB provides $100,000 in funding at $30,000 per grant. 3 submissions are received and sent for review. They receive scores of 1.9, 3.0, and 4.5. The grant with a score of 4.5 is not considered further. Both of the other 2 moves to the second level of review since the total of the budgets (30,000 x 2) is less than the available RFA funding. Following committee review and vote, the final scores are 2.8 and 3.6. Only one grant will be funded since the grant receiving a 3.6 is deemed fatally flawed.

Instructions to Reviewers
Reviewers will be provided with a copy of the RFA so as to be aware of specific RFA guidelines. Reviewers will be provided with a copy of this document and asked to pay particular attention to the section on Conflicts of Interest.

Given that these are seed grants and so as not to burden reviewers, reviewers are instructed to be concise in their written reviews. Reviewers will follow the NIH guidelines for review, including the following categories:

1. Description
2. Critique
   1. Significance
   2. Approach
      Note: In order to not burden the Biostatistics Core for preparation of seed grant applications, in-depth biostatistical analysis will be required only for those seed grants that are deemed likely to be funded. Following review, for those seed grant applications deemed appropriate for further biostatistics support, that support should be limited to no more than five hours.
   3. Innovation
   4. Investigators
   5. Environment
3. Overall evaluation
4. Protection of Human Subjects from Research Risks
5. Gender, Minority and Children Subjects
6. Vertebrate Animals
7. Biohazards
8. Other Considerations
9. Budget
   Note: Unlike NIH study section review, the budget will be discussed after scientific discussion prior to assigning a score. This way, the committee could limit the scope of the application to the best aims. Or, if an application proposes a particularly risky but brilliant idea, the committee could limit the work to that required establishing feasibility. Proposals could be limited to 1 year, or 6 months to establish feasibility. A grant might, therefore, achieve a better priority score if the aims are refocused through appropriate budget cuts. A brief note by the committee chair should document this action if it is taken.
10. Foreign

In order to ensure conformity in the review process, we will utilize a scoring system based upon merit for funding. Reviewers will be instructed to use the following scale to score applications:

Grant Review Committee
The Grant Review committee will consist of 4-6 faculty members representing each RFA. If there are a relatively large number of grants, in order to make the most effective use of busy reviewers' time commitments, the chair of the review committee is instructed to make his/her best efforts to limit discussion of each grant. As a general guideline, it is suggested that 15 minutes be allotted for discussion of each proposal. (Amended July 19, 2006). We will attempt to have 2 of the 3 reviewers for each application attend the committee meeting. Prior to 4 days before the meeting, the written comments from all 3 reviewers will be circulated to those two attending the meeting. All grants submitted in response to each of the RFAs will be discussed by the entire committee as a block. The PI of the RFA may attend the review committee prior to review to provide any specific instructions pertinent to the goals of the RFA. Each member of the review committee will present their review and one of the committee members will present the review of those reviewers not present at the committee meeting. Following discussion, each grant will be scored confidentially by each member of the committee and the average score will be determined. The averaged scores for each application will be posted following voting of all grants for a given RFA. Based upon the scores, each grant application within any given RFA will be ranked and grants will be funded in rank order, beginning with the top score until funds for the RFA are exhausted.

(Updated 08/03/07) The Chair of the Grant Review Committee meeting has the discretion to further triage those applications that clearly will not likely be funded and limit or eliminate discussion for those very best grants that will clearly merit funding.

Reviewers should stay for as much of the meeting as possible. The expertise of each reviewer contributes to the overall review process when grants from different disciplines are being considered.

Conflicts of Interest
The universe of potential grant reviewers and seed grant applicants at UCLA is relatively small and formal collaboration as well as collegial interaction among UCLA faculty is both desired and promoted. As such, UCLA faculty have a responsibility over and above that normally expected at NIH study sections to utilize their best judgment to remain objective and impartial when reviewing an AIDS Institute application from a fellow UCLA faculty member. Every effort should be made to avoid even the perception of potential conflicts of interest.

The following are relationships that would result in actual and/or perceived conflicts of interest:

1. Faculty engaged in active collaboration in the project described in the application, including research collaboration or provision of support in the form of funds, personnel, administrative support, supplies, etc.
2. PI of a program or center and co-investigators who derive salary or research support from the PI.
3. Mentor/mentee relationship, including guidance in any aspect of one's career related to or not related to the application in question. Any support in the form of research funds, supplies, personnel support, laboratory and/or office support provided by a senior investigator to a junior investigator would be considered to be a mentor/mentee relationship.

Areas where conflicts of interest may occur and the appropriate recusal mechanism would be as follows:

1. Selection of reviewers
   The PIs or their faculty designees for any given RFA funding source will be responsible for selecting the reviewers. Should there be a potential conflict, the PI should designate one of the AI Associate Directors to assist in selecting reviewers.
2. Written review of an application.
   Any reviewer with a conflict of interest should recuse themselves and a new reviewer be selected.
3. Seed Grant Review committee discussion and voting.
   Any committee members in conflict should recuse themselves from the discussion and voting.

Record Keeping and Award Notice
It is the intent of the AIDS Institute that the review process be as transparent as possible so that all applicants are aware of the review process and potential conflicts of interest be avoided. However, the strict confidentiality of the identity of reviewers and content of oral discussion of committee members will be maintained. Copies of all applications and correspondence with applicants should be maintained at the AIDS Institute office. If any part of the review process is administered outside of the AIDS Institute office, AIDS Institute letterhead should be utilized, such that applicants are aware that the application is undergoing the AIDS Institute review process. Similarly, award notices should be generated on AIDS Institute letterhead and signed by the Director and the PI of the respective RFA. A centralized AI spreadsheet will be maintained listing the PI and title of all submitted applications, the names of reviewers, scores, amount awarded, and status. This spreadsheet will be available for review by any Associate Director of the AIDS Institute. The identity of reviewers will not be divulged to any other individual.

Support of Projects Outside of the AIDS Institute Review Process
It is recognized that some senior investigators have grant support and/or discretionary funds that may be utilized to support projects by junior investigators and/or as part of collaborative studies. These may be in the form of support for research programs, travel, start-up support, bridge funding, etc. Support of this type is not AIDS Institute sponsored support and should not be designated in any manner as AIDS Institute funding and support. It is particularly important that the Director and Associate Directors be very clear when providing such individual private support that it not be confused with formal support sanctioned and reviewed by the AIDS Institute review process. As indicated above, the AIDS Institute sponsored support must follow the review process above and must be clearly indicated as such on correspondence to the applicant, award notices and posted on the AIDS Institute website. Conversely, the Director or Associate Directors who provide support outside of this process should never utilize AIDS Institute letterhead and should specifically indicate that the support is not provided through the AIDS Institute review process.