Project Review Procedure
The Union has approved a uniform system for the submission and approval
of projects for funding by IUPAC. General information and details
on how to submit a project have been available since January, 1999
on the IUPAC web site <www.iupac.org/projects>
and were published in Chemistry International, January 1999.
In most cases, funding decisions will be made by the relevant Division.
However, funding decisions will be made by the Project Committee for:
The following procedure describes the new project
review steps, in the order in which they occur in practice:
Steps:
-
- Internal evaluation and identification of outside
reviewers
- Distribution to the outside reviewers and gathering
of the reviews
- Communication of the reviews to the Division(s)
or Standing Committee(s) for final decision or recommendation to the
Project Committee
- Consideration and action by the Project Committee
(when applicable)
-
- Responsibility for project management
1. RECEIPT AT THE SECRETARIAT
The Secretariat will review each project proposal to ensure that it
is properly completed, and that no questions have been left out. Completeness
of the Outcome, Dissemination Plan, and Suggested Referees sections
will be particularly examined.
Based on the information provided in the proposal, the Secretariat
will identify the relevant IUPAC Body(ies), i.e. the Division(s)
or Standing Committee(s) that should review and supervise this project.
In case of ambiguity, the Secretariat will consult with the Secretary
General.
<Back to top>
2. INTERNAL EVALUATION
AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE OUTSIDE REVIEWERS
Each proposal is distributed to the relevant IUPAC Body(ies) for an
initial evaluation and identification of the outside reviewers.
The Secretariat will send the proposal to the Projects Coordinator
of each relevant Division and Standing Committee [to the Division President
or Committee Chairman in the absence of a designated Coordinator]. The
Coordinator is asked to respond to the Secretariat on two questions:
- Is the proposal of potentially sufficient interest to warrant undertaking
an outside review?
- If so, from whom should reviews be sought?
The response is to be sent to the Secretariat within two weeks if feasible.
Concurrently the proposal will be sent to the Committee on Chemistry
and Industry to suggest possible relevance to the chemical industry.
If the project outcome is a publication (printed or electronic), the
project will be distributed to one member of the Committee on Printed
and Electronic Publication (CPEP), who will express his/her opinion
on the proposed Outcome and Dissemination Plan.
The conclusion of this internal review can be one of the following:
- The proposal is complete and satisfactory to the Projects Coordinator.
The proposal can be sent by the Secretariat to the outside reviewers.
- The proposal needs revision. Direct communication between the Projects
Coordinator and the submitter (cc Secretariat) will follow until a
revised proposal is satisfactory. The outside review procedure will
then be initiated at the Secretariat.
- The proposal is considered inadequate. The review process ends
at this point.
Notes:
1. If one of the submitters is the Division President, the Vice President
will fulfill his/her function.
2. Advice for Project Reviewers
includes a number of items on which the outside reviewers are asked
to give their opinion. Division and Standing Committee Members are strongly
recommended to take into account during their internal evaluation the
same items. An overall assessment should include not only the scientific
aspects of the project but also its relevance to the Goals and Strategic
Thrusts of IUPAC.
3. The outside reviewers assigned by the Division or Standing Committee
should be experts in the field, and in general be chosen so as to avoid
the appearance of conflict of interest.
<Back to top>
3. DISTRIBUTION TO THE OUTSIDE
REVIEWERS AND GATHERING OF THE REVIEWS
The Secretariat distributes the proposal to outside reviewers without
mentioning the names of the other referees. The proposal is sent together
with a copy of the Advice for Project Reviewers, by electronic
means whenever possible, and a reply is expected within a month of distribution.
The names of the referees will be disclosed only to the members of the
funding body(ies) but not to the submitter.
<Back to top>
4. COMMUNICATION OF THE REVIEWS
TO THE DIVISION(S) OR STANDING COMMITTEE(S) FOR FINAL DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION
TO THE PROJECT COMMITTEE
The reviews are collected at the Secretariat and forwarded to the submitter,
with a copy to the Projects Coordinators. The submitter is given the
opportunity to respond to the outside reviews if he/she so wishes, within
two weeks.
At this stage, the Projects Coordinator can ask to have the reviews
distributed to the Committee, refer the matter to the Division President
or Committee Chairman, or decide on the behalf of the Committee.
Three outcomes are possible:
- Disapproval. This decision normally terminates consideration
of the proposal but does not preclude submission of a modified proposal
on the same subject.
- Approval, with funding by the Division. In some instances, as arranged
individually, a possible contribution by another Division could be
provided.
- Approval in principle, with referral to the Project Committee.
This option should be chosen only when the proposal is an interdisciplinary
project, or when the funding required is over the Division limit/budget.
The Division should explain and justify this recommendation. A proposal
that is supported by a Standing Committee is normally referred to
the Project Committee for a funding decision.
<Back to top>
5. CONSIDERATION AND ACTION
BY THE PROJECT COMMITTEE (WHEN APPLICABLE)
When referral is made to the Project Committee, assessments from each
of the relevant bodies will be forwarded to the Project Committee, together
with the proposal and the reviewers' comments.
While reviewing a project proposal, the Project Committee may obtain
additional reviews when necessary or consult with the referring Division/Standing
Committee for clarification. If no additional information is required,
the Committee expects to come to a decision within three weeks.
<Back to top>
6. NOTIFICATION OF IUPAC'S DECISION
TO THE SUBMITTER
The Secretary General will notify the submitter of the decision on behalf
of the IUPAC body responsible for that project.
<Back to top>
7. RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
Subsequent project management is the responsibility of the appropriate
Division Committee or Standing Committee. For interdisciplinary projects
supported by more than one IUPAC body, mutually satisfactory arrangements
should be made to ensure a clear line of authority and responsibility
for project management.
<Back to top>
Page last modified 20 January 2004.
Copyright ©1999-2004International Union
of Pure and Applied Chemistry.
Questions or comments about IUPAC, please contact, the Secretariat.
Questions regarding the website, please contact Web
Help.