Prisca and Michael will continue to work together on pulling together the relevant data. I remind you that DOE provides a counter example to success rates - see spreadsheet at that link. Other Issues are
demographic data (gender, race, age) is not requested (no database). It might be inferred from the comparative review notes. Early Career rewards require < 10 yrs from PhD
data exists on whether it is a “new” proposals to the HEP program vs “renewal” to the HEP program. A PI moving between research thrusts (aka “frontiers”) would be considered a “renewal” in this context. Is there data on someone who puts in a resubmission of the same proposal the next year when it was rejected the first time?
successful awards have public information on the institution, the PI, and the total amount of the award given by HEP.
they do NOT have number of PIs on a grant, total funding requested in the original proposal, breakdown of funding by frontier. DOE is considering how to capture that.
Limited in how far back you can go: HEP began relying on the comparative review process for proposals submitted to the FY 2012 funding cycle. Some data exist from before 2012 but not as detailed and there are concerns about accuracy.
Agency impact: The comparative review is an improvement over the previous mail-in-reviews only process. The outcomes that we viewed were fair. (comes from the COV)
Agency impact: successful at getting reviewers, particularly new reviewers: 153 reviewers participated in the FY 2015 comparative review process, in which 687 reviews were completed with an average 4.9 reviews per proposal.