Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
| aaac:jul9 [2015/07/09 12:05] – prisca | aaac:jul9 [2015/07/09 14:47] (current) – prisca | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| * data exists on whether it is a “new” proposals to the HEP program vs “renewal” | * data exists on whether it is a “new” proposals to the HEP program vs “renewal” | ||
| * successful awards have public information on the institution, | * successful awards have public information on the institution, | ||
| - | * the do NOT have number of PIs on a grant, total funding requested in the original proposal, breakdown of funding by frontier. | + | * they do NOT have number of PIs on a grant, total funding requested in the original proposal, breakdown of funding by frontier. |
| * 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. | * 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: 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) | ||