Texas Register, Volume 38, Number 46, Pages 8023-8312, November 15, 2013 Page: 8,080
8023-8312 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
for Grant Award consideration by the Program Integration Committee
and the Oversight Committee.
(2) Peer Review will be conducted pursuant to the require-
ments set forth in Chapter 702 of this title (relating to Institute Stan-
dards on Ethics and Conflicts, Including the Acceptance of Gifts and
Donations to the Institute) and Chapter 102, Texas Health and Safety
Code.
(b) The two stages of the Peer Review Process used by the
Institute are:
(1) Evaluation of Grant Applications by Peer Review Pan-
els; and
(2) Prioritization of Grant Applications by the Prevention
Review Council, the Product Development Review Council, or the Sci-
entific Review Council, as may be appropriate for the Grant Program.
(c) Except as described in subsection (e) of this section, the
Peer Review Panel evaluation process encompasses the following ac-
tions, which will be consistently applied:
(1) The Institute distributes all Grant Applications submit-
ted for a particular Grant Mechanism to one or more Peer Review Pan-
els.
(2) The Peer Review Panel chairperson assigns each Grant
Application to no less than two panel members that serve as the Primary
Reviewers for the Grant Application. Assignments are made based
upon the expertise and background of the Primary Reviewer in relation
to the Grant Application.
(3) The Primary Reviewer is responsible for individually
evaluating all components of the Grant Application, critiquing the mer-
its according to explicit criteria published in the Request for Applica-
tions, and providing an individual Overall Evaluation Score that con-
veys the Primary Reviewer's general impression of the Grant Appli-
cation's merit. The Primary Reviewers' individual Overall Evaluation
Scores are averaged together to produce a single initial Overall Evalu-
ation Score for the Grant Application.
(4) The Peer Review Panel meets to discuss the Grant Ap-
plications assigned to the Peer Review Panel. If there is insufficient
time to discuss all Grant Applications, the Peer Review Panel chair-
person determines the Grant Applications to be discussed by the panel.
The chairperson's decision is based largely on the Grant Application's
initial Overall Evaluation Score; however a Peer Review Panel member
may request that a Grant Application be discussed by the Peer Review
Panel.
(A) If a Grant Application is not discussed by the Peer
Review Panel, then the initial Overall Evaluation Score serves as the
final Overall Evaluation Score for the Grant Application. The Grant
Application is not considered further during the Grant Review Cycle.
(B) If a Grant Application is discussed by the Peer Re-
view Panel, each Peer Review Panel member submits a score for the
Grant Application based on the panel member's general impression of
the Grant Application's merit and accounting for the explicit criteria
published in the Request for Applications. The submitted scores are
averaged together to produce the final Overall Evaluation Score for the
Grant Application.
(i) The panel chairperson participates in the discus-
sion but does not score Grant Applications.
(ii) A Primary Reviewer has the option to revise his
or her score for the Grant Application after panel discussion or to keep
the same score submitted during the initial review.(C) If the Peer Review Panel recommends changes to
the Grant Award funds amount requested by the Grant Applicant or to
the goals and objectives or timeline for the proposed project, then the
recommended changes and explanation shall be recorded at the time
the final Overall Evaluation Score is set.
(5) At the conclusion of the Peer Review Panel evaluation,
the Peer Review Panel chairperson submits to the appropriate Review
Council a list of Grant Applications discussed by the panel ranked in
order by the final Overall Evaluation Score. Any changes to the Grant
Award funding amount or to the project goals and objectives or time-
line recommended by the Peer Review Panel shall be provided to the
Review Council at that time.
(d) The Review Council's prioritization process for Grant
Award recommendations encompasses the following actions, which
will be consistently applied:
(1) The Review Council prioritizes the Grant Application
recommendations across all the Peer Review Panels by assigning a Nu-
merical Ranking Score to each Grant Application that was discussed by
a Peer Review Panel. The Numerical Ranking Score is substantially
based on the final Overall Evaluation Score submitted by the Peer Re-
view Panel, but also takes into consideration how well the Grant Ap-
plication achieves program priorities set by the Oversight Committee,
the overall Program portfolio balance, and any other criteria described
in the Request for Applications.
(2) The Review Council's recommendations are submitted
simultaneously to the presiding officers of the Program Integration
Committee and Oversight Committee. The recommendations, listed
in order by Numerical Ranking Score shall include:
(A) An explanation describing how the Grant Applica-
tion meets the Review Council's standards for Grant Award funding;
(B) The final Overall Evaluation Score assigned to the
Grant Application by the Peer Review Panel, including an explanation
for ranking one or more Grant Applications ahead of another Grant
Application with a more favorable final Overall Evaluation Score; and
(C) The specified amount of the Grant Award funding
for each Grant Application, including an explanation for recommended
changes to the Grant Award funding amount or to the goals and objec-
tives or timeline.
(e) Circumstances relevant to a particular Grant Mechanism or
to a Grant Review Cycle may justify changes to the dual-stage Peer Re-
view process described in subsections (c) and (d) of this section. Peer
Review process changes the Institute may implement are described be-
low. The list is not intended to be exhaustive. Any material changes
to the Peer Review process, including those listed below, shall be de-
scribed in the Request for Applications or communicated to all Grant
Applicants.
(1) The Institute may use a preliminary evaluation process
if the volume of Grant Applications submitted pursuant to a specific
Request for Applications is such that timely review may be impeded.
The preliminary evaluation will be conducted after Grant Applications
are assigned to Peer Review Panels but prior to the initial review de-
scribed in subsection (c) of this section. The preliminary evaluation
encompasses the following actions:
(A) The criteria and the specific Grant Application
components used for the preliminary evaluation shall be stated in the
Request for Applications;
(B) No less than two Peer Review Panel members are
assigned to conduct the preliminary evaluation for a Grant Application38 TexReg 8080 November 15, 2013 Texas Register
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas. Secretary of State. Texas Register, Volume 38, Number 46, Pages 8023-8312, November 15, 2013, periodical, November 15, 2013; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth379973/m1/58/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.