S2C2 |Stanford-SLAC Cryo-EM Center

Project Evaluation Criteria

User Access

Quick Email Contacts

Quick Links for Users

The review criteria for S2C2 proposals are primarily based on the mission of the National Institutes of Health's Transformative High Resolution Cryo-Electron Microscopy Program as the program supports the center financially.  More specifically, our external, peer review, Project Evaluation Committee is considering the following criteria for the proposal review:

Scientific Merit

  • Intellectual impact of the work on the field.
  • Need for cryoEM to achieve project aims.
  • Value of using single particle cryoEM approaching atomic resolution towards project aims

Project Readiness

  • Based on preliminary data for the proposed specimen(s)
    • ​Prior image data (preliminary cryoEM screening and/or negative-stain electron micrographs), 2D class averages, and/or a lower resolution 3D reconstruction are needed to substantiate the feasibility of the project.
    • SDS-PAGE gels and/or SEC traces are needed to assess specimen purity for single particle cryoEM.
  • The cryoEM research experience of the investigators.
  • The investigators' access to SPA-capable cryoEM facilities at either their home instiution or elsewhere.

Geographic and Institutional Association

  • This information is utilized to prevent untoward monopolization of center resources by partnering institutions or geographic regions.

Each of the three kinds of applications (i.e., Data Collection Service, Exploratory Freezing & Screening, or Training) are evaluated separately by the Project Evaluation Committee.  Scientific merit is considered equally for all three kinds of applications; however, the bar for project readiness is lower for exploratory freezing & screening projects and the lowest for training projects.  The committee may reassign projects from data collection service to exploratory freezing & screening or training project types based on project readiness as appropriate.

To ensure consistency in the evaluation process, the committee uses the following rating scale from 1 (best rating) to 5 (worst rating):

Excellent (1.0 - 1.9)

  • 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.
  • Proposed specimens are ready for high-resolution, single particle cryoEM studies.
    • ​Specimens produced/procured at sufficient quantity and purity.
    • Preparatory conditions optimized for specimen vitrification.
  • Given highest priority for microscope time.
  • A rating of 1.0-1.4 is given to the most compelling proposals with the greatest likelihood of a high-profile publication.

Very Good (2.0 - 2.9)

  • A worthwhile problem or valuable research that may lead to advances in fundamental knowledge or technology.
  • Proposed specimens are ready for high resolution, single particle cryoEM studies.
    • ​Specimens produced/procured at sufficient quantity and purity
    • Preparatory conditions optimized for specimen vitrification.
  • Given second priority for microscope time, as resources permit.

Good (3.0 - 3.9)

  • A reasonable problem for single particle cryoEM, but less than cutting edge, forefront research.
  • Proposed specimens are not quite ready for high resolution single particle cryoEM studies.
    • ​Specimens produced/procured at a questionable quantity and/or purity.
    • Preparatory conditions not optimized for specimen vitrification.
  • Given microscope time only after all projects rated excellent and very good have received time.

Fair (4.0 - 4.9)

  • Significant deficiencies appear in the proposed project regarding scientific merit and/or project readiness.
  • Unlikely to be given microscope time.

Poor (5.0)

  • The proposed project is poorly designed and/or communicated.
  • Major scientific and/or technical issues remain unaddressed.
  • Not to be given microscope time.
 

    Last Updated

    Fri, 11/11/2022 - 14:34