Skip to main content
Sign In

Colorado Pilot Program (CO-Pilot)

Review Criteria

Reviewers with appropriate expertise will evaluate eligible applications with a specific emphasis on research that furthers the CCTSI mission. Recommendations will be presented to the CCTSI Executive Committee for approval.  All Executive Committee decisions will be final.  Short informative critiques of application strengths and weaknesses will be provided to all applicants after selection notifications are made.

Review Guidelines

  • Innovation
    Is the proposal innovative and novel in its hypotheses, approaches, and techniques?  Does the application represent a changing research direction or a transition to a new area of research that broadens an investigator’s research program in clinical and translational areas?
  • Approach/Scientific Merit
    Are hypotheses and experimental approach sound? What is the likelihood of success given the experiments / proposal as outlined? For Mentored awards, are the plans for the applicants career development adequate? Are there explicit plans for development of future funding for the project, whether from the NIH, foundations, or commercial sources? 
  • Cross-disciplinary or Collaborative Focus
    Does the research involve a new collaboration, especially one that increases its translational nature? Are attempts made to bridge basic and translational researchers in discovery translation?
  • Significance, especially to the CCTSI Mission
    Will the results further our understanding / diagnosis / prevention/ or treatment of human diseases?
  • Investigators
    Do the investigators have the necessary expertise and capacity to complete the proposed research? Have the investigators made use of new collaborations? Are attempts made to integrate basic and translational researchers in discovery translation? Are efforts made to collaborate with community researchers or community members, if relevant? Is the Multiple PI Plan appropriate, if applicable?  For Mentored awards, is there sufficient justification for continued mentorship, does the mentor have adequate prior experience and is a strong mentorship plan proposed?
  • Environment
    Does the research environment improve the likelihood that the proposed research can be completed and have an impact? Does the proposal consider use of CCTSI resources, including Design, Biostatistics, Technology Resources, Patient and Clinical Interaction Resources etc.?

© The Regents of the University of Colorado, a body corporate. All rights reserved.

Accredited by the Higher Learning Commission. All trademarks are registered property of the University. Used by permission only.