Reader Pool Guidelines for Faculty
1. Contact a pool administrator & provide information Please give the pool administrators early notice that you wish to use the service, preferably when beginning the writing process. A draft is not needed at this point. Please provide the following information. We will then contact you to determine a date for receipt of a draft.
- Name, rank and department
- Tentative Title of your Proposal
- Proposed Sponsor and Grant Program (with a link to the program guidelines)
- Proposal due date
- Your choice whether you want only a reader in your field or will accept a general reader. A reader in your field cannot be guaranteed.
- Any special circumstances, e.g., faculty member who is not a native speaker of English
2. Submit your draft proposal (narrative & budget) by the agreed date. The Pool Administrators will begin the search for a reader when a reasonably complete (and spell checked) draft is in hand (electronic copy preferred). Attachments and appendices are not needed. We will attempt to identify a reader within three business days and provide a copy of the draft proposal to the reader. We will then provide you with the reader’s name.
3. Contact the reader soon and make arrangements. Arrangements for obtaining reader’s comments should be made between reader and writer. Most readers wish to have 2-3 weeks to review a draft and prepare comments. Please remember to thank the readers, as they are volunteering their time to benefit you and the University.
4. Complete the quality improvement survey. About two weeks after submission date, we will send a quality improvement questionnaire. Please provide us with feedback to improve the service, either on paper or over the phone.
Reader Pool Administrators
Dr. Alan Schreier Director, New Program Development
Mr. Ernie Marshburn Director, Strategic Initiatives Initiatives
Disclaimer: (1) The pool administrators will make their best efforts to identify expert readers for all submitted draft proposals. However, availability of a reader for every proposal cannot be guaranteed. (2) The reader’s critique of a draft proposal represents the professional judgments of the reader as an independent scholar and faculty member. They do not represent the views or opinions of the Division of Research and Graduate Studies.