S2C2 Project Evaluation Committee



David DeRosier, PhD

Committee Chair

Professor Emeritus of Life Sciences

Brandeis University, Waltham, MA




Yifan Cheng, PhD

Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics

University of California, San Francisco, CA




Karen Davies, PhD

Principal Electron Microscopist

electron Bio-Imaging Centre (eBIC)

Diamond Light Source, Didcot, UK




Melanie Ohi, PhD

Rowena G. Matthews Collegiate Professor in the Life Science

Life Sciences Institute Research Professor

Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI



Michael B. Sherman, PhD

Assistant Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology

University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX




Ann H. West, PhD

Grayce B. Kerr Centennial Chair

Professor of Chemistry & Biochemistry

Director, Oklahoma COBRE in Structural Biology

Associate Vice President for Research and Partnerships

University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK



Zhiheng Yu, PhD

CryoEM Shared Resource Director

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Janelia Research Campus, Ashburn, VA



Proposals are peer reviewed and rated by the Project Evaluation Committee on a scale from 1 (highest) to 5 (lowest). Peer reviewers evaluate proposals based on scientific merit, particularly the intellectual impact of the work on the field and the value of using single particle Cryo-EM towards atomic resolution to accomplish the proposed work. Other criteria include the need for cryo-EM to achieve project aims, the readiness of the project as determined by the Committee based on the preliminary data, geographic and institution distribution.

To ensure consistency in the review process, reviewers use the following rating scale:

  • 1.0 – 1.9 Excellent: A well-chosen problem or important research that has a good chance of producing a major contribution to fundamental knowledge or an important technological development through high resolution single particle cryo-EM studies. Prior image data, 2D class averages and/or a lower resolution 3-D reconstruction will be helpful to substantiate the need and feasibility of the request. Should be given highest priority for cryo-EM time. (The most compelling proposals with the greatest likelihood of a high profile publication should be rated 1.0–1.4.

  • 2.0 – 2.9 Very Good: A worthwhile problem or research that may lead to advances in fundamental knowledge or technology. Should receive cryo-EM time if at all possible.

  • 3.0 – 3.9 Good: A reasonable problem, but less than forefront. Cryo-EM time should be considered only after the above two categories have received time.

  • 4.0 – 4.9 Fair: Significant deficiencies appear in the proposal. Successful completion of the research is doubtful. Should probably not receive time.

  • 5.0 Poor: Poorly written proposal or major scientific issues that should not receive time.