Note: Application process is subject to change. Research grant awards are subject to change based on available funding.
WATCVM Research Proposal Outline
2. Name and organization of the investigator
3. Introduction and rationale
- Brief literature review of the importance of the problem and what significant research has been previously completed by the investigator and others; references must be listed numerically as a superscript number at the end of the appropriate sentence after the period.
- Succinct statement of the problem to be studied
- Hypothesis or research question
4. Materials and methods
- Experimental design, e.g. true experimental study, prospective randomized clinical controlled trial, cross-over design, retrospective study
- Type, description and number of animals
- Experimental group designations, including number of animals in each treatment and control group
- Randomization method, e.g. random number generator
- Detailed description of experimental methods, outcome parameter(s) and data collection
- All research studies involving animals must have been performed in compliance with guidelines outlined in the Animal Welfare Act (http://awic.nal.usda.gov), United States Public Health Service Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/phspol.htm), the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (http://oacu.od.nih.gov/regs/guide/guide4.htm), the Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching (http://www.fass.org/docs/agguide/Chapter01.pdf) or equivalent guidelines from other countries; authors from countries other than the United States should submit a copy of the animal use and care guidelines from their country
- Description of the statistical analysis
5. Research plan and timeline
6. Anticipated results and potential pitfalls of the research project
- Itemized and detailed
- Disclosure of the source and amount of any other funds to support this research
- References should be listed in the order they appear in the text using the following format: Journal Article: Xie H, Collahan P, Ott E. Evaluation of electroacupuncture treatment of horses with signs of chronic thoracolumbar pain. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005; 227:281-286.Book: Schwartz C. Four Paws Five Directions. Berkley, CA: Celestial Arts 1996:35-39,1-3,15.Book Chapter: Schoen A. Acupuncture for musculoskeletal disorders. Veterinary Acupuncture 2nd Ed, Schoen A (ed). St Louis, Mo: Mosby 2001:161-165.
WATCVM Research Committee Research Proposal Evaluation Checklist
Each proposal will be rated from 1-5 (5 being the best score) on each of the following:
- Importance of the study to TCVM
- Focus, clarity and definition of the research question
- Research design: type of subjects, randomization, number of subjects in each
group, treatment and control methods, blindedness and outcome parameters
- Humane treatment of experimental subjects
- Statistical analysis
- Budget itemization detail and validity of all requested funds
- Feasibility of completing research in proposed timeline
- Likelihood investigator(s) will complete the proposed research and publish findings
- Overall score: Degree that the research proposal scientifically addresses the hypothesis or answers the research question
- A combined score for each category will be calculated by averaging the score assigned by each member of the Research Committee.
- The proposal must receive a combined score of 4-5 in each category to be acceptable.
- An averaged score of less than 4, for any category, will be discussed by committee members and comments and recommendations will be forwarded to the researcher(s) for proposal revision and resubmission if indicated.
- A final total score of all categories will be calculated by averaging the total score assigned by each member of the Research Committee. The one or two proposals with the highest final total score will be accepted for funding in the current year.
- In addition to the scoring process outlined above, each reviewer will attach a narrative outlining the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal and recommendations for improvements where appropriate.