Referee Report Form

The CGD Society aims to promote research into the cause, inheritance, management, symptoms and cure of chronic granulomatous disorder (CGD) and to disseminate the useful results of such research.

Please complete all sections (A–J) and send the form to Dr Susan Walsh at

In appropriate sections, please give comment and a score rating as required.

In Confidence

Application reference:

Applicant(s)/REF:

Refereecode:

A. The importance of the problem that the application seeks to overcome

B. The importance of the contribution it will make to furthering the charity’s strategic aims

CONTRIBUTION SCORE =

(0–3 = little or no contribution; 4–7 = average contribution; 8–10 = excellent contribution)

C. The project’s scientific merit, the feasibility of the work proposed and the likelihood of a successful conclusion within the time specified

SCIENTIFIC MERIT SCORE =

(0–3 = little merit; 4–7 = average merit; 8–10 =excellent merit

D. Originality of ideas, i.e. are others attempting to answer the same question and, if so, does the work need repeating or does the proposal offer anything new?

ORIGINALITY SCORE=

(0–3 = unoriginal or unworthy of repetition; 4–7 = worthy of repetition; 8–10= original)

E. The qualification and track record of the applicant(s) and his/her/their department(s)

F. Cost-effectiveness. How much of the support requested is justified? What modifications to the support would you recommend to the ResearchAdvisory Panel?

G. Please give an overall score for the application according to the criteria below.

Mark awarded:

Scoring system

8–10 Scientifically excellent and of major importance;internationally competitive; worthy of award.

6–7 Very good; likely to make a significant contribution to knowledge; nationally competitive; worthy of award.

5 Good. Likely to produce novel and worthwhile data. Consider for award but not in its present format.

3–4 Fair. May contribute to knowledge but unlikely to make an impact.

0–2 Unfundable. Flawed, marginal or unnecessarily repetitious of other work. Not worthy of support.

Normally only those applications that score over 5will be considered for funding.

H. Areas of concern that need to be addressed before the application can be considered for funding

I. Feedback to the applicants. It is our policy to provide feedback to our applicants once the outcome of their submission is known. Please provide constructive comments on how you have reached your decision about the application and how the application could be improved.

J. Details of the referee (please note your name will not be revealed to the applicant under any circumstances)

Name of referee:

Department:

Address:

Telephone no:

Email:

Field of expertise:

Signature of referee:

Date:

June 2015

1