Thank you for agreeing to help us identify projects with high potential impact for the ACS Sustainability Grant program. To ensure a fair and consistent review process, we ask you to consider the following criteria as you prepare your review.
- Research track record of applicant related to green and sustainable chemistry.
Has the applicant demonstrated an interest (in the case of early career) or a proven track record (in the case of established principal investigator) in research related to green chemistry and sustainability?
- Evidence of dedication and passion for teaching, with emphasis on green and sustainable chemistry.
Has the applicant demonstrated passion and dedication to teaching, with emphasis on green chemistry and engineering? For early career researchers – has the applicant taken advantage of opportunities to excel in teaching in during graduate and postdoctoral training? For established principal investigator – has the applicant demonstrate a passion for teaching excellence and incorporating green chemistry and sustainability in their teaching and service?
- Fundamental Research in Green and Sustainable Chemistry
Does the proposed research have significant potential to contribute to the green chemistry toolbox and have potential impact on U.N. Sustainable Development Goals?
- Scientific Merit of the Proposal
What is the significance and perceived impact of the proposed research on the fundamental discipline(s)? How novel and creative is the research and does it have potential to result in technical innovations?
- Testable, Hypothesis-Driven Proposal
Is the proposal clearly written, focused and does it address well-defined scientific questions?
- Displayed Knowledge of Subject Area
Did the researcher demonstrate a good grasp of the existing developments in this field and did they compare and contrast the proposed research from what has been accomplished in the past?
- Safety and Best Practices in Green Chemistry
Does the proposed work have obvious risks or hazards, and has the researchers applied best practices to avoid use of highly hazardous or persistent materials (e.g., using halogenated solvents or making highly persistent compounds is not consistent with best practices in green chemistry).
Applicant Track Record Rating Terms
On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being poor and 5 being exceptional, rate the applicant's track record based on demonstration of:
- a keen interest (in the case of an early career investigator) or a proven track record (in the case of an established principal investigator) in research related to green chemistry and sustainability;
- Passion and dedication to teaching, with an emphasis on green chemistry and engineering? For early-career researchers, has the applicant taken advantage of opportunities to excel in teaching in during graduate and postdoctoral training? For an established principal investigator, has the applicant demonstrated a passion for teaching excellence and incorporating green chemistry and sustainability in their teaching and service?
Proposal Rating Terms
9-10 (Exceptional): The highest order of ability is revealed in the selection and presentation of a unique and important research project. A major contribution to basic knowledge and to green and sustainable chemistry is highly probable. The proposal will fall among the top 2–3% of proposals in this subfield.
7-8 (Excellent): A high order of ability is revealed in the selection and presentation of the research project. An opportunity for a major contribution to basic knowledge and to green and sustainable chemistry is probable. The proposal will fall among the top 10% of proposals in this subfield.
5-6 (Very Good): The proposal is technically well presented. There is potential for an important contribution to basic knowledge, but the connection to sustainability and green chemistry is not well established. The proposal will fall among the top third of proposals in this subfield.
3-4 (Good): The proposal, while technically well presented, lacks imagination. A contribution to basic knowledge is possible. The proposal will fall among the middle third proposals in this subfield.
1-2 (Fair/Poor): The proposal may have some merit but is seriously flawed in presentation or in content. Major revisions might be appropriate. An important contribution to basic knowledge is not likely. The proposal will fall among the lowest third of proposals in this subfield.
