Advocate reviewers will be selected based on prior experience in advocacy and general knowledge of PWS. They will evaluate the relevance of the proposal to the concerns of the PWS community. The advocates will evaluate the goals of the proposal with respect to the mission of the Foundation for Prader-Willi Research: to eliminate the challenges of PWS through the advancement of research. Reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the applications, and use of AI, Large Language Models, or similar tools (like Chat GPT) for the advocate reviews are strictly forbidden. If you would like to become an advocate reviewer, please contact caroline@fpwr.org.
ADVOCATE REVIEW EVALUATION CRITERIA
Below are some questions to keep in your mind as you review the proposal and evaluate each of the review criteria. Please use evaluative statements about strengths and weaknesses of the application.
For the purposes of Advocate Reviewing, please assume that the science is sound, and note that you are not expected to perform outside research to review this application. The scientific reviewers are responsible for evaluating the feasibility, experimental design and technical aspects of the proposal. Please base your answers on your own experiences and how you believe the PWS community would view this research.
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES: Briefly summarize the major strengths and weaknesses of the proposed research, emphasizing those areas you feel are most relevant for the application and to the PWS community.
SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT: Do you believe the proposed studies address a problem not previously addressed or insufficiently addressed in PWS research? What will be the effect of this study on the PWS community? Are the research objectives important to the PWS community?
RESEARCH TEAM: Looking at the biosketches in the application, do you believe the research team is well-suited to carry out PWS research?
CONCERNS: Please list any concerns that you see with the budget and ethical approvals for research with animal models/humans (as appropriate).
LAY ABSTRACT: Please rate the quality of the lay abstract in explaining the proposed research to non-scientists and potential impact to the PWS community (Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor). Provide feedback for improving the lay abstract as needed.
Give an overall score based on the following scoring system:
1= exceptional; 2=outstanding; 3=excellent; 4=very good; 5=good;
6=satisfactory; 7=fair; 8=marginal; 9= poor
