Are the aims introduced and explained sufficiently to be understood without reading the Background section?
- Is the background sufficiently researched and referenced?
- Does the background make a good case for the relevance of the experiments?
- Does extraneous information clutter the argument or presentation?
- Has the student introduced all the key players (genes, proteins, organisms, etc.) that the reviewer needs to be familiar with in order to read the rest of the proposal?
- Is the material presented logically so that reading it is straightforward and, perhaps, even a pleasure?
- Are figures used when necessary to illustrate concepts?
- Are the specific aims clear and complete?
- Are rationales provided for each experiment (that is, a few sentences describing what the experiment is designed to ask and what the general method used will be) before plunging into technical details of the experiment?
- For each set of experiments, is there appropriate discussion of the possible results, what they will mean and how they will affect further work?
- Is the level of description of the technical details appropriate?
- If applicable, have the necessary administrative requirements to do with human subjects, animal welfare, etc. been addressed?
- Are the ideas clearly stated?
- Are acronyms and terms defined at their first use?
- Are there page numbers, appropriate and consistent headings, and appropriate and complete citations (for the text and figures)?
- Is each figure relevant enough to warrant inclusion, legible with an appropriate legend, and referred to appropriately in the text? Is the caption sufficiently informative?
- Do paragraphs have topic sentences? Do sentences within paragraphs support an idea - that is, is there a logical flow in the writing?
- Are there few errors in grammar, sentence structure, punctuation, and precise word choice?