Home > Policies > Policy & Procedure
Internal Grant Proposal Assessment
Name of Policy
Internal Grant Proposal Assessment
Policy Number
V. 18
Original Policy Date
Last Revised Date
Other Related Regulatory Rules Laws & Policies Next Scheduled review Date
Associated Procedures & Forms (Attachments)
Cycle of Reviews


To develop a Review and an Approval Process based on merits of the Internal Grant Proposals.


Proposal that qualify the pre-screening will be evaluated by the University Research Council including eventually the external members with the approvals of the department chairs and deans. The technical approval process will be dictated by certain procedures including the timeline of the approval process. A standardized assessment procedure should be fulfilled no later than three weeks from the submission date.

The researchers whose proposals are provisionally selected may be invited by the University Research Council for a short presentation (20 minutes followed by a question period of 10 minutes) for the final approval.
The evaluation of the research proposals will be based on factors such as Clarity and Originality of the research problem, Relevance and Significance of the study, Quality of Methodology, Closeness to the country’s strategic priority segments and needs. Preference will be given to projects that develop meaningful contributions to society problems and excellent connectivity to the industry.

Selection Criteria

Proposals that qualify pre-screening will be reviewed by the University Research Committee. The following criteria inspired from different external funding bodies will be adopted to select the best proposals:

  1. Relevance of the proposal: The degree to which the proposal addresses present or future issues.
  2. Objectives: The specificity, measurability, attainability and time frame.
  3. Contribution:  How significant are the contributions to the discipline, the society, and to which degree the contribution meets the external funding priorities?
  4. Proposer’s Past Scholarship/Expertise: expertise of the applicants in relation to the proposed research.
  5. Research Methodology: the degree to which the proposal represents a creative and scientific approach (quantitative or proven qualitative methods) to the accomplishment of objectives.
  6. Feasibility: potential for longer-term sustainability and continuity of the research program beyond the period of the proposed research.
  7. Cost effectiveness: budget is complete, realistic, and justifiable.
  8. Chances to get external funding are demonstrated.

The assessment procedure will be used by the appropriate PMU approval bodies could be summarized in the below “Research Evaluation Form” that will be also used by the referees:

Evaluation Items Weight Poor (between 1% and 50%) Fair (between 51% and 70%) Good (between 71% and 80%) Very Good (between 81% and 90%) Excellent(between 91% and 100%)
1. Originality 5%          
2. Relevance of the research proposal to the KSA Strategic initiatives and trends 15%          
3. Research Plan 5%          
4. Research Methodology 12%          
5. Literature Survey 5%          
6. Relevance of Investigators (Background & Experiences) 15%          
7. Research Budget 5%          
8. Other Impacts (visibility, ranking, citations) 3%          
9. Relevancy to Industry and Commercialization Potential 5%          
10. Closeness of the Proposal to the Institutional Research Agenda   20%          
11. Potential to get external funding 10%          
  • Score = Sp = (∑WixXj where W stands for the weight of each criterion “i” and X stands for the assessor’s evaluation per criterion “j”). The ranking “R” of the projects “p” will be based on the average of the scores of the assessors (Rp = ∑Sp /N) where N stands for the number of assessors.
  • The proposal for internal research grant is:
    • Highly Relevant (≥90%): ___         
    • Relevant (between 70% and 89%): ___     
    • Little Relevant (≤ 69%): ___ 
  • Final and Overall Judgment (based on the ranking and the availability of the University budget): 
    • Accepted: ___              
    • Accepted with comments: ___  
    • Should be resubmitted with minor or major changes: ___
    • Rejected: ___  (Main Reasons  __________________ )