Scoring – 9 Point Scale Goal: To improve the transparency of the scoring process: • Score applications on five review criteria using a scale of 1-9. 1-9 • Preliminary overall impact score using 1-9 scale. scale Should not be the average of the criterion scores. Not Discussed applications will receive initial criterion scores from the three assigned reviewers
View full slide show




The NIH Peer Review Process Types of Reviewers • Regular reviewers – permanent and temporary – Preliminary impact/priority scores, criterion scores, written critiques – Final impact/priority scores • Other Contributing Reviewers (“mail” reviewers) – Written critiques, criterion scores, preliminary impact/priority scores – Cannot submit final impact/priority scores 10 10
View full slide show




Understanding the Equity Summary Score Methodology 2 3. Calculate – The normalized analysts’ recommendations and the accuracy weightings are combined to create a single score. For the largest 1,500 stocks by market capitalization, these scores are then forcibly ranked against all the other scores to create a standardized Equity Summary Score on a scale of 0.1 to 10.0 for the 1,500 stocks. This means that there will be a uniform distribution of scores provided by the model thereby assisting investors in evaluating the largest stocks (in terms of Understanding the Equity Summary Score Methodology Provided By 2 capitalization), which typically make up the majority of individual investors’ portfolios. Finally, smaller cap stocks are then slotted into this distribution without a force ranking, and may not exhibit the same balanced distribution. The Equity Summary Score and associated sentiment ratings by StarMine are: 0.1 to 1.0 ‐ very bearish 1.1 to 3.0 ‐ bearish 3.1 to 7.0 ‐ neutral 7.1 to 9.0 ‐ bullish 9.1 to 10.0 ‐ very bullish Other Important Model Factors:  An Equity Summary Score is only provided for stocks with ratings from four or more independent research providers.  New research providers are ramped in slowly by StarMine to avoid rapid fluctuations in Equity Summary Scores. Indep. research providers that are removed from Fidelity.com will similarly be ramped out slowly to avoid rapid fluctuations. Notes on Using the Equity Summary Score: The Equity Summary Score and sentiment ratings are ratings of relative, not absolute forecasted performance. The StarMine model anticipates that the highest rated stocks, those labeled “Very Bullish” as a group, may outperform lower rated groups of stocks. In a rising market, most stocks may experience price increases, and in a declining market, most stocks may experience price declines  Proper diversification within a portfolio is critical to the effective use of the Equity Summary Score. Individual company performance is subject to a broad range of factors that cannot be adequately captured in any rating system.  Larger differences in Equity Summary Scores may lead to differences in future performance. The sentiment rating labels should only be used for quick categorization. An 8.9 Bullish is closer to a 9.1 Very Bullish than a 7.1 Bullish.  For a customer holding a stock with a lower Equity Summary Score, there are many important considerations (for example, taxes) that may be much more important than the Score.  The Equity Summary Score by StarMine does not predict future performance of underlying stocks. The Equity Summary Score model has only been in production since August 2009 and therefore no assumptions should be made about how the model will perform in differing market conditions. Understanding the Equity Summary Score Methodology Provided By 3 How has the Equity Summary Score performed? Transparency is a core value at Fidelity, and that is why StarMine provides Fidelity with a view of the historical aggregate performance of the Equity Summary Score across all covered stocks each month. You can use this to obtain insight into the performance and composition of the Equity Summary Score. In addition, the individual stock price performance during each period of the Equity Summary
View full slide show




Traditional* Review Meeting Process • Upper half applications discussed: Reviewers are guided by specific review criteria Protections for Humans, Vertebrate Animals, Environment (Biohazard) may affect final score Assigned reviewers recommend scores for each application in upper half; all members not in conflict vote their conscience (outlier score policy pertains) Other considerations not affecting final score are discussed (e.g., budget, foreign applicants, resource sharing plans) • Lower half applications not discussed, not assigned an overall score * Aspects of this process will change in May, 2009 http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov
View full slide show




5. Mean projections and mean student scores are calculated. Student Projection1 Student Score 1 Student Projection 2 Student Score 2 Student Projection 3 Student Score 3 Student Projection 4 Student Score 4 Student Projection 5 Your School Student Score 5 Student Projection 6 Student Score 6 Student Projection 7 Student Score 7 Student Projection 8 Student Score 8 Student Projection 9 Student Score 9 Student Projection 10 Student Score 10 Student Projection 11 Student Score 11 Student Projection 12 Student Score 12 Student Projection 13 Student Score 13 Student Projection 14 Student Score 14 Student Projection 15 Student Score 15 Student Projection 16 Student Score 16 Student Projection 17 Student Score 17 Student Projection 18 Student Score 18 Student Projection 19 Student Score 19 Student Projection 20 Student Score 20 Mean Projected Score Mean Student Score Copyright © 2003. Battelle for Kids
View full slide show




Merit Review Criteria Reviewers Guiding Principles, Revised Review Criteria, and five review elements incorporated into GPG Chapter III Reviewer and Panelist Letters Give due diligence to the three Merit Review Principles Evaluate against the two Merit Review Criteria Consider the five review elements in the review of both criteria Panel and Proposal Review Form in FastLane Updated to incorporate consideration of review elements in addressing the two criteria Text box added for reviewers to address solicitationspecific criteria
View full slide show