Guidelines for Reviewers

Thank you for participating in the ACS PRF external peer review process.

Before you can access the proposal, you will need to declare that you do not have a conflict of interest  and that you receive the proposal in confidence and will protect the confidentiality of its content.

Each external peer review should include general comments and specific comments about the proposal’s strengths and weaknesses. The review should include constructive feedback that helps strengthen the proposed work.

Note: ACS PRF aims to enable PIs to generate preliminary data that help them submit a later proposal to a sustaining funding agency . Thus, preliminary results are optional in ACS PRF proposals.

To facilitate the creation of a robust review, you may download the ACS PRF Review Guidance & Rubric document.

In general, a reviewer should reflect on:

• Is the proposed research fundamental petroleum science (i.e., not “applied” research of commercial interest)?
• Does the research plan adequately address a testable hypothesis?  (Is the proposal focused, and will it address well-defined scientific questions? Will the experiments, measurements, modeling, and/or proposed simulations lead to a successful outcome?)
• Does the hypothesis make predictions that can be validated (or disproven) by the proposed research?
• How would you describe the scientific merit of the proposal?  (What is the significance and perceived impact of the proposed research? If conducted, will the research enhance our understanding of the phenomenon being studied? How novel is the research, and will it result in technical innovations?)
• Does the applicant demonstrate knowledge of the subject area?
• Can the proposed work be accomplished with the requested budget and timeframe?
• Would the results generated from ACS PRF funding enable the PI to submit a competitive proposal to a sustaining funding agency?