Review Process

The Review Process

All submitted proposals are carefully reviewed with respect to aims, methods, clarity, and significance. Typically, the Fund receives 8 to 10 applications per review cycle or a total of 16 to 20 applications per year. Applications are funded based on merit. Thus, the Fund does not award a minimal number of applications every year but does make every effort to find merit in individual submissions.

Every member of the Review Board of the Fund reads all applications. Three members of the Board and/or outside consultants are asked to provide detailed written reviews, which are abstracted and also provided in full to the applicant in a letter written by the chairman of the Board of the Fund. The identities of the reviewers are not made known to the applicant. Many past applicants have found the detailed reviews useful for future submissions to the Fund as well as to other agencies.

The Board seeks the consultation of outside reviewers if (a) the application presents methods and/or concepts not within the expertise of any member of the Board; (b) the applicant or any member of the Board requests an outside reviewer; or (c) two or more members of the Board have a conflict of interest with the applicant.

Conflicts of interest occur when the applicant and the Board member are from the same institution, have an advisory, supervisory, and/or clinical relationship, or the applicant has sought the consultation of a member of the Board around the preparation of an application. In the event that a member of the Board has a conflict of interest with a submitted application, the Board member is not present for the discussion of that application and does not vote regarding funding.

Outside consultants are sought at the discretion of the Board but any applicant may request an outside reviewer and may provide the Board with a list of names of possible reviewers that the applicant feels would be appropriate for their submission. The applicant should not submit names of collaborators, mentors, or any individual from their own institution. The applicant should also not submit names of persons who have been involved as consultants, even if briefly, in the preparation of their application. The Board seeks "arms-length" outside consultants and looks to individuals for their expertise, not their psychoanalytic affiliation. Outside consultants are asked to provide the Board with a detailed written review of the application that will also be provided in the summary letter to the applicant. Once again, outside reviewers are not identified by name to the applicant though the Board will inform all applicants regarding the use of outside reviewers.

REVIEW PROCESS CRITERIA

Provision of Written Feedback: Within a month following the review of applications, all applicants are provided with a written summary and the reviews of their applications. All reviews are conducted during the regular January and June meetings of the American Psychoanalytic Association. Applicants will also be provided with a numerical score that reflects the average score assigned by all members of the review committee and outside consultants.

Questions Regarding Reviews: Applicants are always welcome to contact the chairman of the Board of the Fund to discuss questions regarding the reviews and/or decisions regarding their applications. In the event that applicants feel that one or more reviewers failed to appreciate a point in their application, the applicants are also encouraged to contact the chairman of the Board. The feedback from applicants is critical to the Board's continual review of its own review process, and all letters from applicants regarding reviews are circulated to every member of the Board. Except in very unusual circumstances based on the consensus of all members of the Board, the Fund does not typically ask for another set of reviews in between the biannual review cycles but does encourage applicants to resubmit if they feel they are able to answer the individual critiques from the reviews. Note that no member of the Board of the Fund can explicitly encourage or discourage an applicant from submitting or resubmitting an application. To do so would justify a conflict of interest and that Board member would be excused from the review process. Finally, board members do from time to time agree to serve as consultants to applicants either in their original preparation of an application or in their preparation of a revised resubmission. In these instances, the consulting member of the Board does not participate in the review of the application.