Evaluation
Get helpful feedback.
During Peer-to-Peer Review, each participant will be asked to score and comment on five other submissions using the four criteria included in the scoring rubric: equitable, transformative, community-centered, and feasible. This is the same scoring rubric that the Expert and Judging Panels will use in their review.
In addition to scoring each submission on the four criteria in the scoring rubric, peer reviewers will also provide a final numerical score, ranging between 0-100, representing an overall impression of the entire submission. We ask that each peer reviewer carefully read the submissions assigned to them and provide meaningful feedback.
In parallel with Peer-to-Peer Review, valid submissions will be evaluated by the NIH team for applicability of scope in relation to the challenge objectives. All valid submissions within scope of NIH and the Build UP Trust Challenge will move forward to expert reviewers and the Judging Panels. The Peer Review feedback process will not affect the selection of Finalists in this phase.
Valid submissions that have passed NIH’s scope assessment will move on to the Expert Panel. This group of expert reviewers will evaluate submissions assigned to them using the scoring rubric.
The NIH Judging Panel will score and provide feedback on submissions assigned to them using the scoring rubric, and each valid submission will receive multiple reviews.
The resulting rank order of submissions from NIH Judging Panel review will identify up to ten (10) Finalists and up to five (5) honorable mentions, pending final decisions by the award-approving official – Gary H. Gibbons, MD, Director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) at NIH.
