CIFellows 2020 For the Record
Appendix N: Cadmium Review Form
Abstain from Review. Only check the box to the left if you have a potential conflict of interest with the proposal. Conflicts of interest with applicant or mentor are defined following NSF rules (https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/nsf04_23/appb.jsp)
For each applicant, please score each aspect of the applications from 1-4 using the following metrics:
- 4 = fund; application is excellent in nearly all respects
- 3 = likely fund; application is very good
- 2 = fund if room; application has merit
- 1 = do not fund; application has serious deficits
Review Question 1. Please grade the applicant’s research record from 1 (low quality) – 4 (high quality).
Review Question 2. Please rate the applicant’s proposed research activity from 1 (low quality) – 4 (high quality) based on strength, quality and potential for impact. Consider the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts.
Review Question 3. Please rate the applicant’s Fellowship Plan from 1 (low quality) – 4 (high quality) based on quality and suitability.
Review Question 4. Please rate the Mentoring Plan from 1 (low quality) – 4 (high quality) in combination with the Fellowship plan based on quality and suitability.
Review Question 5. Please rate how highly the letters recommend the applicant from 1-4.
Review Question 6 (Text box). Please list key strengths of this application.
Review Question 7 (Text box). Please list the key weaknesses of this application.
Comments. Please indicate anything about this application that the Selection Committee should know, including if this application has features of Broadening Participation in Computing or Computing Education.
- For more information please check out the CIFellows 2020 Website
- Please submit ideas and feedback to firstname.lastname@example.org
- Interested in learning more and being involved?Subscribe for announcements here