Sustainable Microbiology Novel Research Grant Evaluation Criteria

This page contains information on how the Sustainable Microbiology Novel Research Grant will be evaluated by the grants panel

Alignment with Sustainable Microbiology and AMI’s Goals (max 15 points)

  • Does the research clearly align with AMI’s strategic objectives and the principles of sustainable applied microbiology?
  • Does it contribute to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs)?
  • Does it advance AMI’s mission to apply microbiological knowledge for societal, industrial, or environmental benefit?

Strong Alignment – 15 pts
Moderate Alignment – 10 pts
Limited Alignment – 5 pts

Research Significance and Impact (max 40 points)

  • Does the research have clear potential for significant scientific, societal, or environmental impact?
  • Are the anticipated outcomes meaningful, innovative, and achievable?
  • Does the project address a pressing challenge or knowledge gap within sustainable applied microbiology?

High Significance – 40 pts
Moderate Significance – 20 pts
Limited Significance – 10 pts

Originality and Application as a Pilot or Proof-of-Concept (max 40 points)

  • Does the project demonstrate originality or innovation within its field?
  • Does it introduce novel methods, concepts, or technologies that advance applied microbiology?
  • Is the work appropriate for a pilot or proof-of-concept study, with potential to scale or inspire further research?

Highly Original – 40 pts
Some Originality – 20 pts
Lacking Originality – 10 pts

Budget Justification and Appropriateness (max 5 points)

  • Is the proposed budget proportionate to the project’s scope and objectives?
  • Are requested costs clearly justified, reasonable, and aligned with AMI’s funding priorities?
  • Does the applicant provide sufficient detail to demonstrate effective use of resources?

Well-Justified – 5 pts
Partially Justified – 3 pts
Poorly Justified – 0 pts

Scoring Guidelines

Total Possible Score: 100 Points

  • 80–100: Excellent — strongly meets all criteria; high priority for funding.
  • 60–79: Good — meets most criteria effectively; consider for funding.
  • 40–59: Fair — meets some criteria; may require further consideration.
  • Below 40: Poor — does not sufficiently meet criteria; low priority for funding.