2008 CBCRP Evaluation Process & Review Committees

The CBCRP thanks the participants in our 2008 review committees for their service and dedication to our Program!

In the first phase of the funding process, grant applications were peer reviewed and scored for scientific merit in a “study section” format using a model that follows established practice at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Each committee is composed of scientists and advocates from outside California. The committee Chair leads the review process and is a senior researcher in breast cancer areas associated with the committee’s central topics (e.g., etiology and prevention). Committee Members have broad expertise in topics associated with individual applications. Breast cancer Advocate reviewers are women and men active in breast cancer issues and many of whom are also living with the disease. Advocates bring their personal knowledge and commitment to the review process. Often they have specialized training in grant review, such as the NBCC’s Project LEAD. Each committee also includes a California Advocate Observer, who does not review or vote, but represents the California advocacy community. The observer gains insight into our process and provides feedback to the Program. Ad Hoc members participate by teleconference and bring their specialized expertise to the review of individual applications.

The majority of research funding agencies rate proposals with a single scientific merit score. In contrast, the CBCRP uses a merit scoring system that separates scientific merit into individual components (e.g., approach, innovativeness, impact). This allows our expert reviewers and the Program to better differentiate applications that might otherwise appear identical. For example, we can now pick the most innovative applications, or those that have the highest career development potential. Depending on the award type, we use four or five scientific merit components in the peer review process.

After the completion of all review committees, the CBCRP ranks the application pool by average scientific merit. Applications in the upper two-thirds of average scientific merit are rated by the CBCRP’s advisory council for programmatic responsiveness. The following criteria are used:

This two-tiered evaluation and funding process ensures both scientific excellence and relevance of the research to CBCRP’s mission and goals.

Review Committees