IFS BASIC GRANT REVIEW FORM

Review R- Reviewer: (Session: 2022-S)

IFS Application:

SECTION A: QUALITATIVE REVIEW

This is the most important section of your review. It will be used in the Scientific Advisory Committees (SAC) as
well as be shared with the applicant, either verbatim or slightly edited.

1. YOUR QUALITATIVE REVIEW

Your qualitative review

Your written evaluation of the application. Please use the scoring sections as a guide for your text, stating
the strengths and weaknesses of the application. Indicate if there are ethical or biohazards concerns.
Le sujet traité par le candida test très important pour l’élevage bovin. En effet la tripanosomose fait partie
des zoonoses négligées et qui fait d’important dégât dans les élevages africain. Le projet a été bien rédigé
mais comportes quelques inquiétantes faiblesses.
Dans le chronogramme le candidat propose menée les études sur 24 mois. IFS propose comme marge
extrème 18 mois.
Dans la partie 6.1. Le candidat a rédigé un article intitulé “Medicinal Plants with Trypanocidal Properties
from Traditional African Pharmacopoeia Used in Veterinary Medicine: Review and Perspectives”. C’est à
croire que le candidat dispose déjà des plantes médicinales anti-trypanocides. Dans ce cas l’étude portant
sur l’enquête ethnobotanique n’a raison d’être. Nous rappelons au candidat que IFS ne finance pas les
études déjà menées.
Dans la partie 7.1 le candidat n’a pas présenté les statistiques de la trypanosomose sur le plan mondial, en
Afrique et au bénin. Cela rend difficile l’appréciation de cette zoonose. Certes, le candidat a présenté les
chiffres de bovins atteints mais cela ne suffit pas pour donner un aperçu réel de la maladie.
Dans la section 7.4 relatives aux objectifs. le candidat ne saurait mener les étude in vivo sans les études in
vitro au préalables. Il est important de réaliser les études in vitro avant les études in vivo. Si le candidat a
déjà réalisé les études in vitro prière en apporter les preuves.
La méthodologie de l’objectif 3 n’est pas claire. Comment les doses à administrer aux animaux ont été
choisie ??
Le budget est mal justifié. Le coût relégué l’enquête est n’a pas été bien justifié. Je vous prie de justifier le
budget par des informations vérifiables.

Confidential comments to committee/IFS

Comments to the SAC or the IFS secretariat that will not be shared with the applicant.
le projet peut être accepté et financé sous réserve de certaines corrections telle que le budget, les objectifs,
et la méthodologie relative à l’objectif 3 et 4.

For revised proposals only

For Revised Applications Only. Have the comments from previous reviews been addressed and suitable
changes made to the revised application?
[Open Text]

2. FEEDBACK FOR APPLICANT

Further feedback for the applicant in addition to that mentioned in your qualitative review above, if applicable.

Additional feedback to the applicant

[Open Text]

Suggestions for Contacts or Training

Share relevant contacts or training suggestions which you think may help strengthen the capacity of the
applicant and/or widen their scientific network
[Open Text]

Can the applicant contact you?

If yes, we will share your contact details with the applicant so that they can contact you if they wish to do so.
Contact details are shared separately to your comments.
 yes

SECTION B: SCORING
The scores are a tool for the reviewer and for the SAC, not to be shared with the applicant.

1. CAPACITY OF APPLICANT
Consider the applicant’s skills for the project and whether there are expertise gaps.
Use 1 = Very Poor, 2 = Poor, 3 = Fair, 4 = Good, 5 = Very Good
Qualifications & experience 5

2. JUSTIFICATION OF PROJECT
Consider the project justification; whether the literature review is current, comprehensive and relevant; and if the
applicant has identified knowledge gaps (application sections 7.1 to 7.3).
Use 1 = Very Poor, 2 = Poor, 3 = Fair, 4 = Good, 5 = Very Good
Project background 4
3. SCIENTIFIC QUALITY OF PROJECT
Are the research objectives clear and realistic; the hypothesis or research questions testable; and is the project
design and research plan appropriate to test hypotheses and meet objectives.
Use 1 = Very Poor, 2 = Poor, 3 = Fair, 4 = Good, 5 = Very Good
Research objectives (application section 7.4) 3
Hypotheses/research questions (application section 7.5) 4
Project design & data analysis (application section 7.9) 4
Research plan (application section 7.10) 4
Overall Score for this Section
4. FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT
Consider the feasibility of the project in terms of the time plan and budget.
Use 1 = Very Poor, 2 = Poor, 3 = Fair, 4 = Good, 5 = Very Good
Time plan 3
Budget 3
Overall Score for this Section

5. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROJECT

Consider whether the project brings new knowledge to science, is applicable, is relevant for local and regional
development needs, its relevance globally. Please score novelty, applicability and relevance on a scale of 1 to 5,
with 1 being the lowest (Not at all Novel/applicable/relevant) and 5 the highest (Extremely
Novel/applicable/relevant).
Scientific novelty 5
Applicability of outputs 5
Relevance to local development needs 5
Relevance to regional dev. needs 5
Relevance to global challenges 4
Overall Score for this Section
(for the relevance/Impact of the project)

6. GENERAL SCORE OF THE APPLICATION

Please give a general score of the overall application. Use 1 = Very Poor, 2 = Poor, 3 = Fair, 4 = Good, 5 = Very
Good
General score of the application 4
 SECTION C: FINAL RECOMMENDATION

Your final recommendation to IFS

X Recommended
 Not recommended, but invite to resubmit
 Not recommended

Reason(s), if Not Recommended

 Applicant does not merit support
 Project does not merit support
 Applicant and project do not merit support
 Applicant has not satisfactorily addressed previous reviewers’ comments if revised
 Other reason(s)

Your previous knowledge of the applicant

If you have previous knowledge of the researcher applying for support, or if you have assisted in the
preparation of the research proposal under review, please state your relationship to the applicant and/or this
application.
[Open Text]

Conflict of Interest
If you have any financial, personal, or professional conflict of interests, please declare them in detail here.
[No]