Application Review Process

How Applications are Reviewed

The independent Scientific Review Committee (SRC) is responsible for peer-reviewing applications for Foundation funding. Members are appointed by the Board of Trustees and serve as volunteers for three-year terms. The committee is comprised of physical therapy researchers who collectively have the range of expertise and experience across all the types of funding the Foundation offers.

The SRC reviews and scores applications for four types of funding that the Foundation offers each year: the Promotion of Doctoral Studies scholarships, the Postdoctoral Fellowship, the letters of intent for our Magistro Family Foundation and two Paris Patla research grants, and for all research grants being offered each year.

The Research Committee, a standing committee of the Board, considers the SRC review scores and makes recommendations for awards based on best scores. The full Board then makes final decisions on all awards. The Board reserves the right not to make an award.



Submit Application on ProposalCentral

All applications must be submitted through the Foundation’s account on ProposalCentral.



Applications Checked for Compliance

The Foundation checks all submitted applications for eligibility, completeness, and for fully meeting all application requirements. Ones that are not fully compliant are triaged and are not assigned to the SRC for review.



SRC Review and Scoring

Remaining applications are matched to appropriately expert primary and secondary SRC reviewers who independently evaluate and score their assigned applications. The SRC aligns its review criteria and scoring with NIH’s. These two scores are then averaged to produce the initial peer-review score.

After this first review round, applications not meeting the scoring cut off are triaged from further consideration. Remaining applications with qualifying scores are discussed by the SRC in online review meetings. Members discuss and then cast scores. The average of those post-discussion scores becomes the application’s final score.

What are the review criteria for research grants?

The Foundation has revised the review criteria for research grants to align them with the 2025 NIH review criteria where appropriate. Starting with the 2026 funding cycle, the Scientific Review Committee will use the criteria below to evaluate all the $40,000 grant applications, as well as the Paris Patla Physical Therapy Research Grant and the Paris Patla Manual Therapy Research Grant. A different version of criteria is being developed for the 2026 Magistro Family Foundation Research Grant. The Foundation reserves the right to update and refine the review criteria.

Significance

Evaluate the importance of the proposed research for advancing knowledge and/or high-quality evidence in the field by assessing how the proposed study results would:

(1) address an important gap in knowledge or evidence that would likely advance PT practice;

(2) address a critical real-world problem or barrier to progress in the field; or

(3) create a valuable conceptual or technical advance.

Evaluate the rationale for undertaking the study: (1) the rigor of the scientific background for the work (e.g., justification is based on prior literature and/or preliminary data), and (2) whether the applicant includes lived experiences and priorities of stakeholders to justify the proposed study.

Innovation

To what extent is the proposed study innovative because it:

asks a new question that is important to an intervention or its validation; or
uses novel concepts, methods, or technologies to shift research or clinical practice.

If it is not innovative, does the study pose a question(s) of critical importance to the field?

Approach (Quality)

Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analysis well reasoned, well described, and appropriate to answer the research questions, accomplish the specific aims of the project, and result in reproducible findings?

Rigor

For experimental designs, is the sample size appropriate and well justified for the size of the study and for answering the primary research question? Are power calculations and effect sizes discussed? Are appropriate controls in place?
Are conceptual and analytical frameworks present and well described?
Are participant characteristics appropriate for the proposed research strategy, including any biological and socioeconomic variables identified?
Is the participant recruitment and retention plan well thought out, including inclusion and exclusion criteria and mitigation of risks?
Evaluate the plans for analysis, interpretation, and reporting of results, including whether limitations, potential problems, alternative strategies are adequately considered.
Are the outcomes clear, justified, and measurable?

Feasibility

Is there very high likelihood that this study will be successfully completed in the requested period of performance for the available budget?
If there are dependencies, do they present an appropriate alternative plan?

Investigator and Research Team (will be scored)

Evaluate whether the Principal Investigator and research team have demonstrated the background, training, and expertise to conduct the proposed work. Career stage is relevant for grants limited to emerging investigators.

Environment (will not be scored)

Are the institutional support, equipment, and other physical resources available to the researchers adequate to ensure the successful and on-time execution of the proposed work?
If multiple sites are included, are their selection and roles appropriate for the study, and has the approach to securing IRB or IACUC approvals or exemptions and data-sharing agreements been adequately described?



Research Committee Selects Applications to Recommend

The best scoring applications are presented to the Board’s Research Committee, which recommends the best-scoring application(s) to the full Board which makes final decisions on which applications are to be provisionally awarded funding.



Award Decisions

The Board of Trustees reviews Research Committee recommendations and makes the final decisions on all awards.



Funding Announcements

The Foundation notifies all applicants of whether they have been successful or not prior to making a public announcement. Review comments and scores are available for applications that went through at least the initial peer-review round.

Meet the Scientific Review Committee Members

Scientific Review Committee members are appointed by the Board of Trustees to provide independent and expert peer reviewing of applications for Foundation funding. It is comprised of physical therapy researchers with experience preparing physical therapists and physical therapist assistants for research careers and with experience conducting successful and impactful physical therapy research themselves.