KIDS MATER TOO ONLY funds pediatric DMG research projects at academic research institutions. To ensure objectivity, funding decisions are made utilizing a double-blind peer review process. This means neither the applicants nor the scientific review board members know each others' names and affiliations. To do this, an outside party removes all identifying information from the applicants' submissions. ​Our review criteria mirrors that of the NIH; the scientific review board reviews and assigns each proposal an overall impact score, which reflects their assessment of the project’s likelihood to exert a sustained, powerful influence on its field. Proposals are evaluated on the following five criteria:

​

Significance

Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

 

Investigator(s)

Are the principal investigators (PIs), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If early-stage investigators, new investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance, and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

​

Innovation

Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions?  Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

​

Approach

Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the Specific Aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities, members of both genders, and participants of all ages justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

​

Environment

Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment, and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

​

​

Criteria descriptions taken from the National Institutes of Health

https://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/critiques/rpg.htm