Q&As for Reviewers - PIER Plans

• How well integrated is the Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research (PIER) Plan with the proposed project?
• What aspects of the PIER Plan are likely to contribute to the goal of creating and maintaining an equitable, inclusive, encouraging, and professional training and research environment and supporting a sense of belonging among project personnel?
• Are all aspects of the PIER Plan actionable and are the goals attainable during the project’s period of performance?
• How does the proposed plan include intentional mentorship of project personnel and are the associated mentoring resources reasonable and appropriate?
• How are the proposed resources and budget for the PIER Plan reasonable and appropriate?
• To what extent is the PIER Plan likely to lead to participation of individuals from diverse backgrounds, including individuals historically underrepresented in the research community?
• For renewal applications only: How does the proposed plan build or expand upon actions and strategies to promote diversity and professional, inclusive research environments in the currently supported research?

During the merit review process, the lead SC Program Manager is the best resource for additional information or guidance regarding evaluating the PIER Plan. General information on the PIER Plan requirement is available on the SC website. PIER Plans should address the guiding questions listed in the solicitation under the relevant review criterion: Quality and Efficacy of the Plan for Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research. The guiding reviewer questions include:

• How well integrated is the Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research (PIER) Plan with the proposed project?
• What aspects of the PIER Plan are likely to contribute to the goal of creating and maintaining an equitable, inclusive, encouraging, and professional training and research environment and supporting a sense of belonging among project personnel?
• Are all aspects of the PIER Plan actionable and are the goals attainable during the project’s period of performance?
• How does the proposed plan include intentional mentorship of project personnel and are the associated mentoring resources reasonable and appropriate?
• How are the proposed resources and budget for the PIER Plan reasonable and appropriate?
• To what extent is the PIER Plan likely to lead to participation of individuals from diverse backgrounds, including individuals historically underrepresented in the research community?
• For renewal applications only: How does the proposed plan build or expand upon actions and strategies to promote diversity and professional, inclusive research environments in the currently supported research?

Yes, all reviewers have the ability to assess a PIER Plan. Topics and issues involving broadening access and creating safe, inclusive, professional learning and research environments are critical to the success of institutions and their employees, trainees, and students. As members of the scientific community who work in institutions with a commitment to promoting employee, student, and faculty diversity and inclusive learning or workplace cultures, reviewers should be able to evaluate PIER Plans. Reviewers should use the guiding reviewer questions provided to assist them as they evaluate plans that will achieve equitable and inclusive research environments and enhance the scientific merit of the proposed research.

In general, SC’s merit review criteria are established as the following in descending order of importance (weight), unless otherwise specified in the solicitation (Notice of Funding Opportunity or DOE Laboratory Call):

• Scientific and/or Technical Merit of the Project;
• Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach;
• Competency of Applicant’s Personnel and Adequacy of Proposed Resources;
• Reasonableness and Appropriateness of the Proposed Budget; and
• Quality and Efficacy of the Plan for Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research.

In general, the order of the merit review criteria listed in the solicitation (Notice of Funding Opportunity or DOE Laboratory Announcement) conveys the relative significance (or weight) of the criteria in descending order of importance.

Every SC Program Office has its own established processes and guidance for reviewers regarding how applications will be evaluated and scored (e.g., numerically and/or adjectivally) in the merit review process for a particular solicitation. The order of importance (i.e., weight) of a particular review criterion relative to other review criteria are specified in the solicitation, and the reviewer guidance relative to their consideration of the review criteria should be consistent with that published order of importance. The lead SC Program Manager is the best resource for information about the relative weighting and scoring rubric for the review you are participating in.

No examples of PIER Plans are provided to encourage applicants to think innovatively about their PIER Plans and tailor their plans to their unique research proposal. The general guidance to applicants about the scope of PIER Plans can be found on the PIER Plan website and the Things to Consider When Developing a PIER Plan site. Each PIER Plan is expected to be tailored to the research project and thus unique and integral to the scientific and technical merit of the proposed research. Applicants are discouraged from simply cutting and pasting their institutional policies or plans, PIER Plans must be tailored to the research.