Peer review leads and team members will be assigned/agreed to by the steering team for each functional area. A minimum of three peer reviewers will be appointed by the peer review lead to review each proposal. Assigned peer reviewers upon reviewing a proposal will complete the attached form and send their completed review form as a PDF document to peer review lead of the team. The peer review lead will complete a composite peer review recommendation (summarizing all views on a single form) for each proposal.
The peer review lead will then sign the composite peer review, and submit a scanned electronic copy of the composite review as well as the individual review PDFs to GSM group mailbox (GSK-EDB-GSM@gsk. com). The composite form will be passed onto the project steering team who will assess proposals across all priorities and make a final decision regarding funding. The individual peer review forms are necessary for audit and feedback purposes. Principal applicants (PAs) will come from two sources.
The first source will be Singaporean Universities (Nanyang Technological University, National University of Singapore, and Singapore Management University). The second will come from Agency for Science, Technology, and Research Institutes (A*Star Institutes, www. a-star. edu. sg ). Industry may partner with a university or institute but may not be PAs. If a decision is made not to fund a proposal, a clear rationale should be provided so that this can be fed back to principal applicants.
If the proposal has significant potential but is lacking in sufficient detail to assess, this should also be indicated so that the applicant can be informed and encouraged to correct the deficiency in the proposal. For instance, if the idea is good but the budget too high, this can be fed back to the principal applicant, or the peer reviewers may recommend to fund the proposal at a lower funding level with a modified scope. If a proposal is recommended for funding, the peer review team should propose a GSK contact who will serve as a long term sponsor of the project.
This contact may come from the peer review team. Instructions for Assessment Against Criteria The endowment is a ‘gift’ from GSK to Singapore and should benefit in this order: 1) Singapore and 2) the broader pharmaceutical and fine chemicals industry. While GSK should benefit from access to the knowledge of the principal applicants and due to our provision of the problem statements, the benefit to GSK is incidental. As a result, peer reviewers should assess the proposals from a broad industry and Singapore perspective rather than a narrow GSK perspective.
Here is some guidance on the selection criteria: Selection Criteria 1: Alignment with the strategic objectives of the endowment fund •Build a strong capability and train a talent pool in Singapore to meet the sustainable manufacturing challenges of the future for local industries •Further enhance the working relationship between universities, institutes, and local companies through industrially relevant research in sustainability and green manufacturing •Enable Singapore to become a leader in sustainability research for pharmaceuticals and fine chemicals
The proposed work must have a strong green and sustainable manufacturing focus. The proposed work should result in a ‘trainee’ (or trainees) who upon completion of the research will be suitable for a role in the area of Green and Sustainable Manufacture for an industrial, basic research, or educational position. If the work is expected to deliver a trainee who can contribute immediately in their next position, this should be a strong positive.
Work that is highly suggestive of a multi-disciplinary approach should have this included in the proposal; if this is not included despite an obvious connection, the overall score should be reduced. For applications which are not collaborative and the benefits of a multi-disciplinary approach are not obvious the score should not be affected. The work should improve Singapore’s standing in green and sustainable manufacturing science for pharmaceuticals and fine chemicals (note: applicable to multinationals operating in Singapore as well as indigenous companies).
If the proposal is for a different area (e. g. , bulk chemicals), the score should be discounted appropriately. This first criterion is the most critical. For a recommendation, it should be weighted at twice the value of other criteria. Impact of the proposal to sustainable manufacturing science The proposal should have an impact to sustainable manufacturing science. If the proposal doesn’t advance the status quo, or works in a low impact space (for instance a seldom used chemical transformation), the score should be appropriately discounted. Highly impactful proposals (e. g. enabling inaccessible but useful chemical transformations through a technological solution; discovery of new catalytic methods for impactful transformations; step change in the design of pharmaceutical packaging through lifecycle analysis approach) should be awarded higher scores. Potential for eventual industrialization of research outputs Proposals should have potential for industrial application, or should drive a level of understanding which is enabling for industrialization. For instance, if facile reactions are to be developed based on a highly unavailable material, this should be discounted in scoring.
If a research output is readily industrializable if successful, this should be awarded maximum points. Theoretical work to drive understanding for successful implementation should be rated against its importance to enabling eventual industrialization. Originality/Novelty of Proposal The proposal should be sufficiently novel that it isn’t simply a repeat of another researcher’s work, or a force-fit of the researcher’s own primary focus into a sustainable and green manufacturing paradigm. The research, if successful, should clearly advance the current state of the science and/or technology in the field.
Feasibility – Are milestones/outcomes achievable given the proposed budget and scope of work? The proposal should have realistic funding requests for the scope of work. For projects that appear adequately resourced and exhibits a reasonable probability of success for the proposed scope, a maximum score should be awarded. Scores should be deducted for either excessive funding/equipment requests, for insufficient requested funds to complete the scope, or for research with a low probability of achieving its planned outputs. Comments
Comments on how well the proposal fits each criterion should be made. Feedback should be available for applicants. The rationale for a proposal should also be clearly available for review by the project steering team. This is important as GSK must be able to provide a level of transparency and integrity in the peer review process. It is also possible to recommend a proposal with condition- for instance, reduced or augmented funding, a minor change in milestones or outputs. Questions Questions on the peer review process should be forwarded to either Philip C Dell’Orco or John N O’Riordan.
