Under Continuing Review

The RCT peer review committees in the Open Operating Grant Program have the ability to flag applications as being "Under Continuing Review" (UCR). This process is used when the committee is generally satisfied with the research proposal but requires additional clarification on specific issues, typically related to the RCT methodology, the study design, and/or the proposal's scientific validity, before the final rating can be assigned. The UCR process is not used when the grant application is considered by the peer review committee to be uncompetitive or fatally flawed as written.

Steps in the UCR Process

1. The peer review committee generates a list of specific questions related to the proposal for the applicant to answer.
2. The application is assigned a conditional rating that assumes the response from the applicant to UCR questions will be satisfactory.
3. Following the peer review meeting, the questions are sent to the applicant, who is normally given two weeks to respond. Only applications that are potentially fundable based on the conditional rating will be followed up for resolution of the UCR questions.
4. The answers are provided to the peer review committee members who were assigned to the application, as well as the committee Chair and Scientific Officer, who determine whether or not the questions have been adequately addressed (typically completed within two weeks).
5. If the answers are not considered to be satisfactory, the UCR flag remains and the application is not considered for funding. If the reviewers are satisfied, the UCR flag is removed and the application can be considered for funding. The final funding decision depends on whether the application is ranked above the funding cut-off for the committee.

Why Just for the RCT Committees?

The UCR process for RCTs was introduced in 2000 when the RCT program was established as a distinct funding mechanism. The intent of the UCR process was to improve the efficiency of the RCT review process and ensure that the proposals are adequately justified and designed from both a scientific and methodological perspective, before an application is recommended for funding. The UCR process allows applicants to address relatively minor but important concerns without having to resubmit a revised application to the next competition, which in turn allows otherwise competitive applications to be potentially funded in a more timely manner and without having to go through an additional round of peer review. The process has been well-received by the RCT community and has been very successful in improving the quality of the RCT peer review process. With the reintegration of the RCT program into the OOGP in the fall of 2009, it was therefore decided to continue to make the UCR process available to the RCT committees, recognizing the unique nature of the RCT proposals and methodology and the long history of the UCR process in the peer review of RCTs.

What a UCR Rating Means

It is important to note that a UCR rating is conditional and reflects the committee's assessment of the proposal assuming that the UCR questions will be addressed satisfactorily. In other words, the rating is based on what the committee expects the proposal would look like with the UCR questions adequately addressed, rather than the proposal as-is at the time of submission. If the UCR questions are not resolved, the rating has no meaning or relevance to the proposal. Thus, applicants with an unresolved UCR rating are cautioned not to attach any meaning to the conditional rating and rather to focus on the written reviews and SO notes to understand the committee's assessment of the proposal.