Project Evaluation Committee

Contacts

General Questions:

s2c2@slac.stanford.edu

Contacts for Cryo-EM Services

 

David DeRosier (Chair) Brandeis University (emeritus)
Yifan Cheng University of California San Francisco
Karen Davies Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Melanie Ohi University of Michigan
Ann West University of Oklahoma
Zhiheng Yu HHMI / Janelia Research Campus

Proposals are peer reviewed and rated by the Project Evaluation Committee on a scale from 1 (highest) to 5 (lowest). Peer reviewers evaluate proposals based on scientific merit, particularly the intellectual impact of the work on the field and the value of using single particle Cryo-EM towards atomic resolution to accomplish the proposed work. Other criteria include the need for cryo-EM to achieve project aims, the readiness of the project as determined by the Committee based on the preliminary data, geographic and institution distribution.

To ensure consistency in the review process, reviewers use the following rating scale:

  • 1.0 – 1.9 Excellent: A well-chosen problem or important research that has a good chance of producing a major contribution to fundamental knowledge or an important technological development through high resolution single particle cryo-EM studies. Prior image data, 2D class averages and/or a lower resolution 3-D reconstruction will be helpful to substantiate the need and feasibility of the request. Should be given highest priority for cryo-EM time. (The most compelling proposals with the greatest likelihood of a high profile publication should be rated 1.0–1.4.

  • 2.0 – 2.9 Very Good: A worthwhile problem or research that may lead to advances in fundamental knowledge or technology. Should receive cryo-EM time if at all possible.

  • 3.0 – 3.9 Good: A reasonable problem, but less than forefront. Cryo-EM time should be considered only after the above two categories have received time.

  • 4.0 – 4.9 Fair: Significant deficiencies appear in the proposal. Successful completion of the research is doubtful. Should probably not receive time.

  • 5.0 Poor: Poorly written proposal or major scientific issues that should not receive time.