UROP relies on a large team of听volunteers to help ensure that all applications听receive fair and informed evaluations鈥攁nd that projects conform to the highest ethical听standards.
Sign Up Now
We encourage you read the information here and invite you to sign up using the interest form at any time.听This form is for the 2023-24 Review Board (scoring proposals for the Summer 2024 / Academic Year 2024-25听application cycle).听 If you served previously (but haven't signed up this year), you won't be included in communications about this year's cycle.
Sign up by March 1, 2025 to be included in this year's cycle.
Timeline
UROP typically sends proposals听around mid-March and requests scores about two weeks later.
Cycle SU25-AY26
- Proposals sent by Early March 2025
- Scores due by Late March 2025
Eligibility
Tenured/tenure-track, research faculty, contract instructors,听postdocs and graduate students at CU听Boulder are eligible to evaluate UROP proposals. Due to the distribution of applications, we have the most need in these areas:
- Life/Bio-Sciences
- Math, Physical Sciences and Engineering
Review Process
Applications are evaluated in a double-blind review process.听Guidelines require applicants to remove all personally identifiable information in their proposals听(names and genders).听 Reviewers are invited to use their discretion in scoring proposals that include PII.
Scoring Reports
Check out our scoring reports for summaries听of the proposal scores and听decisions from previous review cycles.
Review Board Guide
听Navigate using the tabs at the top of the guide. 听
Thanks for Enabling UROP!
We sincerely appreciate the time you give to these evaluations and the expertise you bring to difficult funding decisions.
Direct questions to
Return scores by
March 22, 2024
Blind Review
Disciplinary Categories
The听Review Board is organized into six broadly-defined disciplinary categories that align with the project proposal categories selected by students and faculty when applying.听 Proposals have been sorted into these categories and assigned to at least two reviewers. If you're assigned a proposal that doesn't seem to fit the category, you may score the proposal at your discretion and flag it for further review.
Conflicts of Interest (COI)
You may skip scoring individual proposals as they present conflicts of interest by selecting "COI" on the score sheet.听 These proposals will be scored by other reviewers.
听Navigate using the tabs at the top of the guide. 听
Scoring Instructions
Applications are evaluated in a double-blind review process and tracked using 鈥渟ort numbers鈥� that correspond to the rows on your score sheets. Please ensure the sort numbers align to those on your score sheets鈥攁nd don't resort the score sheets.
1. Review Applications
2. Enter Scores
After reviewing the proposals, enter your evaluations on the attached score sheets in the yellow columns to the right of the bold line.听Due to differences in the scoring criteria for assistantships and individual grants, some cells on the score sheet will appear shaded in dark gray to indicate that a score is not needed for that criterion.
3. Optional: Flag for Further Review
If you notice anything questionable about the proposal鈥攅.g., eligibility issues, compliance plans, personally identifiable information or anything else of concern鈥攑lease "flag for further review" on your score sheet.
4. Optional: Provide Comments
Provide additional comments you would like UROP to consider.
5. Return Scores
Return scores to urop@colorado.edu by the date posted.
Scoring Scale
9 - Exceptional
8 - Outstanding
7 - Excellent
6 - Very Good
5 - Good
4 - Satisfactory
3 - Fair
2 - Marginal
1 - Poor
听Navigate using the tabs at the top of the guide. 听
Holistic Considerations
Please keep in mind that you are concurrently assessing the project鈥檚 merit and the student鈥檚 potential learning experience鈥攁 question of fit and a plan for success. In addition to the criteria below, we encourage you to take holistic considerations into account.
Questions to Consider
Do听the student and mentor have a strong working relationship or听plan to develop their ability to collaborate?
Does the student have听ownership of the proposed work or state听objectives that will enable them to engage听their field?
Proposals supported by strong working relationships
- show students and mentors 鈥渙n the same page鈥�
- outline appropriately-scaled projects with a reasonable plan
- accurately communicate contributions to the larger field
Scoring Criteria
Team Grants
听Learning Experiences
Rate the overall quality of the proposal based on the value of the learning experiences provided.
听Inclusive Excellence
Rate the overall quality of the proposal based on the potential to advance diversity, equity and inclusion.鈥�
Assistantships
听Context and Objectives
Individual Grants
听Context and Objectives
The听proposal clearly explains the methodology and/or strategy to achieve meaningful outcomes and objectives.
听Navigate using the tabs at the top of the guide. 听
Samples
Preview the templates we use to send project proposals and record scores.