Offer Projects
The following recommendations are only suggestions. They do not guarantee a successful research application. They may, however, help you prepare a carefull conceptualized and comprehensive proposal. This may not only be important to the members of the board who have to decide on your application, but also to yourself, by giving you a clear structure for your own work, a rough map of where you are going and a timetable in which to accomplish your research successfully.
Title page: - your research proposal title and your name etc.
Abstract: - around 400 words summarizing What? Why? and How? you are proposing to undertake this research.
Research Context: - setting out the “research problem” area and what others have done about it thus far.
Research problem statement: - why is this still a problem warranting your research; highlighting limitations or weaknesses of other studies and identifying what is necessary to address these limitations. This leads you to stating your research questions.
Research aim: - the aim of your research should logically follow from the research problem statement.
Research method: - This section is logically derived from your research questions, aim and objectives and deals with the practical implementation of your data collection, data analysis and conclusions’ drawing.
Research plan – the last section could be a brief reminder of what it is that you are going to achieve and what will follow from your research method, objectives and timelines. When developing timelines, you have to be aware of the timelines frameworks as set out by saglik-network.org regulations.
Financial plan: The primary investigator is expected to outline the resources and the financial support obtained for the proposed project Assessment Criteria
Applications for Projects are assessed by peers according to the three internationally benchmarked assessment criteria of:
1. Scientific quality;
2.Originality and/or innovation; and
3. Track record - relative to opportunity.
The following paragraphs describe the criteria.
1. Scientific Quality
This includes the clarity of the hypotheses or research objectives, the strengths and weaknesses of the study design and feasibility.
The research proposal may be assessed in terms of, but not limited to:
a) Clarity of the hypothesis or research objectives: including
i Has the method/framework/approach been partially tested?
ii What outcome is sought in the proposed study? What exactly is the outcome
measure?
iii Is it well integrated and adequately developed?
b) Is there a clear and appropriate research plan? Consider also:
i What are the strengths and weaknesses of the study and its design?
ii Have any major pitfalls or problems been overlooked? Have alternative
approaches been considered?
iii Is the plan well informed by knowledge of the literature?
iv Is the design appropriate for the aims of the research?
c) Feasibility
i Will the research plan successfully address the stated hypothesis or research
objectives?
ii Are the goals concrete and achievable?
iii Is the investigating team appropriate – is it capable of achieving the goals? Does it
have the right skills and expertise?
2. Originality and/or Innovation
This includes the potential to increase knowledge about human health, disease diagnoses, or biology of agents that affect human health, or the application of new ideas, procedures, technologies, programs or health policy settings to important topics that will impact on human health.
Note: Applications do not need to be rated on both significance and innovation. Truly innovative ideas and research may not reveal their significance until sometime in the future. Similarly research of the highest significance e.g. important randomized clinical trials or public health intervention studies, may use 'tried and true' methods only, yet be of immense significance to health. GRPs will use peer review judgement.
3. Track Record – relative to opportunity
Track record is considered in terms of whether an applicant’s previous research demonstrates that the researcher (or team) is capable of achieving the proposed project and/or ability to deliver the proposed project in terms of having the appropriate mix of research skills and experience.
Track record may encompass the national and international standing of the applicant(s) based upon their research achievements, including but not limited to:
Research outputs – most recent significant publications; publications that illustrate innovation and significance to past accomplishments; impact or outcome of previous research achievements, including effects on health care practices or policy; awards or honors in recognition of achievements;
Contribution to discipline or area- invitations to speak at international meetings, editorial appointments, specialist and high level health policy committee appointments; and
Other research-related achievements, such as:
- Influence on clinical/health policy or practice, or provision of influential advice to health authorities and government.
- Impacts on health via the broad dissemination of research outcomes; e.g. via mainstream media, the community or industry involvement. Track record is considered in relation to opportunity with regard to factors such as career disruption, administrative and clinical/teaching load, and typical performance (including publications) for the field in question.
Abstract: - around 400 words summarizing What? Why? and How? you are proposing to undertake this research.
Research Context: - setting out the “research problem” area and what others have done about it thus far.
Research problem statement: - why is this still a problem warranting your research; highlighting limitations or weaknesses of other studies and identifying what is necessary to address these limitations. This leads you to stating your research questions.
Research aim: - the aim of your research should logically follow from the research problem statement.
Research method: - This section is logically derived from your research questions, aim and objectives and deals with the practical implementation of your data collection, data analysis and conclusions’ drawing.
Research plan – the last section could be a brief reminder of what it is that you are going to achieve and what will follow from your research method, objectives and timelines. When developing timelines, you have to be aware of the timelines frameworks as set out by saglik-network.org regulations.
Financial plan: The primary investigator is expected to outline the resources and the financial support obtained for the proposed project Assessment Criteria
Applications for Projects are assessed by peers according to the three internationally benchmarked assessment criteria of:
1. Scientific quality;
2.Originality and/or innovation; and
3. Track record - relative to opportunity.
The following paragraphs describe the criteria.
1. Scientific Quality
This includes the clarity of the hypotheses or research objectives, the strengths and weaknesses of the study design and feasibility.
The research proposal may be assessed in terms of, but not limited to:
a) Clarity of the hypothesis or research objectives: including
i Has the method/framework/approach been partially tested?
ii What outcome is sought in the proposed study? What exactly is the outcome
measure?
iii Is it well integrated and adequately developed?
b) Is there a clear and appropriate research plan? Consider also:
i What are the strengths and weaknesses of the study and its design?
ii Have any major pitfalls or problems been overlooked? Have alternative
approaches been considered?
iii Is the plan well informed by knowledge of the literature?
iv Is the design appropriate for the aims of the research?
c) Feasibility
i Will the research plan successfully address the stated hypothesis or research
objectives?
ii Are the goals concrete and achievable?
iii Is the investigating team appropriate – is it capable of achieving the goals? Does it
have the right skills and expertise?
2. Originality and/or Innovation
This includes the potential to increase knowledge about human health, disease diagnoses, or biology of agents that affect human health, or the application of new ideas, procedures, technologies, programs or health policy settings to important topics that will impact on human health.
Note: Applications do not need to be rated on both significance and innovation. Truly innovative ideas and research may not reveal their significance until sometime in the future. Similarly research of the highest significance e.g. important randomized clinical trials or public health intervention studies, may use 'tried and true' methods only, yet be of immense significance to health. GRPs will use peer review judgement.
3. Track Record – relative to opportunity
Track record is considered in terms of whether an applicant’s previous research demonstrates that the researcher (or team) is capable of achieving the proposed project and/or ability to deliver the proposed project in terms of having the appropriate mix of research skills and experience.
Track record may encompass the national and international standing of the applicant(s) based upon their research achievements, including but not limited to:
Research outputs – most recent significant publications; publications that illustrate innovation and significance to past accomplishments; impact or outcome of previous research achievements, including effects on health care practices or policy; awards or honors in recognition of achievements;
Contribution to discipline or area- invitations to speak at international meetings, editorial appointments, specialist and high level health policy committee appointments; and
Other research-related achievements, such as:
- Influence on clinical/health policy or practice, or provision of influential advice to health authorities and government.
- Impacts on health via the broad dissemination of research outcomes; e.g. via mainstream media, the community or industry involvement. Track record is considered in relation to opportunity with regard to factors such as career disruption, administrative and clinical/teaching load, and typical performance (including publications) for the field in question.
