Join the USP Review Panel

The USP panel provides unbiased expert reviews of student research proposals. Panelists advise the USP director by evaluating and ranking proposals. Panelists provide concise, constructive feedback to student proposers to help them learn the craft of proposal writing.

The panel meets three times each academic year – mid-September, mid-January, andearly-March. Panelists complete their reviews online using the USP application portal, Submittable. Reviewers have about 7 - 10 days to review up to five proposals for each cycle. Panel meetings are scheduled to follow the review periods. Panelists are encouraged to attend the meetings, but do not need to stay for the full meeting. The panel will play an important advisory role, but all funding decisions are made by the USP director. 

• Proposal Review
  • Workload:
    • Panel members are assigned approximately 3-5 proposals to read and review in detail prior to the panel meeting. Panelists have approximately 7 - 10 days for the review.
    • Proposal Project Descriptions are limited to five pages and there are some additional materials that you will need to evaluate (e.g. budget, previous results, GPA, transcripts, etc.).
    • We estimate about 30-40 minutes to review each proposal. We encourage panelists to attend the panel meeting following the review period, schedule permitting.
  • Review Assignments:
    • Two reviewers are assigned to each proposal to provide different perspectives.
    • We do our best to assign reviewers proposals that align with their academic expertise, but you may be asked to review proposals within your broad disciplinary area (e.g., bio-logical science, physical science, engineering, arts, humanities, social sciences). In our experience, faculty are able to provide insightful reviews on a wide range of topics peripheral to their specialty.
    • You may or may not be called to serve during every funding cycle.Depending on the volume of proposals in any given term and distribution of disciplines within the applicant pool, we may not assign reviews to every panelist.
  • Conflict of Interest Policy:
    • At a school like MSU, it is nearly impossible to avoid some conflict of interest in reviewing undergraduate proposals from your area of expertise.
    • Professors are likely to have had some contact with most students in their department and have a natural interest in promoting projects in their discipline. However, we will try to minimize the effects of COIs on the decision process by following a few simple rules. In general:
      • panelists will not serve as primary reader/reviewer for proposals in which they are listed as a mentor.  
      • panelists are asked to clearly identify any possible conflicts of interest that might influence their treatment of a proposal.

Proposals are evaluated on four criteria: Student Preparation, Project Significance, Educational Impact, Proposal Quality. Reviews are completed online using the USP application portal by Submittable. The review form provides a rubric for rating the proposal and entering feedback for the applicant. 

• Review Criteria
  • Student Preparation:
    • Has the student demonstrated adequate general academic preparation, disciplinary expertise, practical experience, and motivation to successfully complete the project?
  • Project Significance and Feasibility:
    • Does the project have potential to positively impact the state of knowledge in the discipline? Can the student accomplish project goals or make significant progress during the funding period?
  • Educational Impact: 
    • Is the research experience likely to have a positive impact on the student's learning and academic trajectory?
  • Proposal Quality:
    • Does the research proposal make a strong case for the project using text, figures, tables, and citations (as appropriate)? Is the proposal written and argued? Does the proposal follow formatting guidelines and requirements?
  • Overall Recommendation:
    • Fund (top ~50%),
    • Fund if Resources Permit (~50-85%), 
    • Do Not Fund (bottom ~10-15%).
• Written Feedback
  Please be sure to provide written feedback on EVERY proposal. The USP proposal process should be a learning experience for every applicant. Your substantive and constructive feedback can help students improve their proposal writing and their research skills. We recommend that reviewers write a paragraph for each proposal.

  • • Remember that most USP students are just beginning their research careers. Criticism should be honest, but constructive and encouraging. Include positive comments as well as guidance on how the proposal could be improved.

    • Remember that funding decisions have not been made; do not imply that the project will be accepted or that it will be rejected. Keep in mind that we receive proposals from a range of student experience levels, and some may have quite a lot of experience/training in proposal writing (in general) and USP (in particular), and some may be very new to the process.

    • Notes entered into the Confidential Comments for Review Panel and Confidential Comments for Director Only boxes will be visible only to panel members and USP staff, respectively, so your candid response is welcome.  Comments provided in the “Feedback to Student” box will be visible to students and mentors.

Panel meetings are scheduled after the review period. The meetings are an opportunity to discuss proposals and provide more nuanced guidance for the Director.