�鶹ӰԺ

UROP guidelines require applicants to remove all personally identifiable information (PII) in their proposals, specifically that “proposals must not contain the student's or mentor's personal information (name and gender) to ensure the integrity of blind review.” If you encounter proposals that include the student and/or mentor’s name and/or gender, please make a note in the comments section of the score sheet. ��UROP does not typically disqualify applications for including this information, but you may factor it into your scoring decision.

The Review Board is organized into six broadly defined disciplinary categories that align with the project proposal categories selected by students and faculty when applying. ��Proposals have been sorted into these categories and assigned to at least two reviewers. If you're assigned a proposal that doesn't seem to fit the category, you may score the proposal at your discretion and flag it for further review.

You may skip scoring individual proposals as they present conflicts of interest by selecting "COI" on the score sheet. ��These proposals will be scored by other reviewers.

Applications are evaluated in a double-blind review process and tracked using “sort numbers” that correspond to the rows on your score sheets. Please ensure the sort numbers align to those on your score sheets—and don't resort the score sheets.

1. Review Applications

Most reviewers will receive two “application packets” formatted as PDFs and named with their “review group. One packet includes student grant proposals; the other includes team grant proposals. Due to differences in the number of reviewers and proposals submitted, you might not be assigned a second packet of team grant proposals.

2. Enter Scores

After reviewing the proposals, enter your evaluations on the attached score sheets in the yellow columns to the right of the bold line. Due to differences in the scoring criteria for assistantships and individual grants, some cells on the score sheet will appear shaded in dark gray to indicate that a score is not needed for that criterion.

3. Optional: Flag for Further Review

If you notice anything questionable about the proposal—e.g., eligibility issues, compliance plans, personally identifiable information or anything else of concern—please "flag for further review" on your score sheet.

4. Optional: Provide Comments

Provide additional comments you would like UROP to consider.

5. Return Scores

Return scores to urop@colorado.edu by the date posted.

Please keep in mind that you are concurrently assessing the project’s merit and the student’s potential learning experience—a question of fit and a plan for success. In addition to the criteria below, we encourage you to take holistic considerations into account.

Questions to Consider

• Do the student and mentor have a strong working relationship or plan to develop their ability to collaborate?
• Does the student have ownership of the proposed work or state objectives that will enable them to engage their field?

Proposals supported by strong working relationships

• show students and mentors “on the same page”
• outline appropriately scaled projects with a reasonable plan
• accurately communicate contributions to the larger field