Member Login
E-mail: ISTM@ISTM.org
Office hours: Monday - Friday, 9.00 - 17.00 EDT (UTC-04)
Research Grants
2023-2024 Research Awards Application Period is Now Open
The ISTM Research and Awards Committee is pleased to announce that applications for the 2023-2024 ISTM Research Awards will be accepted through 31 January 2024.
The 2023-2024 Research Awards will be available in three main categories:
- General travel medicine projects;
- Projects by investigators in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs);
- Projects by new investigators; (< 5 years practicing travel medicine or longer travel medicine practice with no prior research funding).
Award requirements include:
- Research must be travel medicine or immigrant/refugee health oriented.
- Project proposal must be scientifically sound and must be in accordance with international ethical guidelines.
- IRB approval is to be secured within 6 months of notice of award.
- There must be no conflicts of interest for any of the investigators who apply for research funding.
- Grant applicants must be ISTM members in good standing.
- Projects should be able to be realistically completed using ISTM grant funding alone.
- Studies are to begin within 1 year of notice of award.
- A progress report will be sent to the ISTM Research and Awards Committee every year with a final report submitted at the conclusion of the project.
- A research paper must be submitted to initially to the Journal of Travel Medicine within one year of completion of the project, it does not guarantee acceptance of the paper.
2023-2024 Research Awards Application Form
Scoring of Proposals
All proposals received by the deadline will go through a peer-review process with consensus (or 75% majority) regarding the awarding of a grant.. The following system is used to score each proposal.
Proposal Section |
|
Hypothesis, and objectives (Total of 10 pts) |
|
| No hypothesis or objectives |
0-2 pts |
| Hypothesis and/or objectives are vague or not stated clearly |
4-6 pts |
| Hypothesis clearly stated. Objectives clear, achievable, and realistic |
8-10 pts |
Significance (Total of 15 pts) |
|
| Narrow focus; Minimal interest; Not likely to contribute to increased knowledge or practice change; Unlikely to stimulate additional studies |
0-5 pts |
| Limited to moderate general interest; Some potential for change of practice or to support further study |
6-10 pts |
| Study is doable and will be of wide general interest; Potential to contribute to practice change or evidence basis of current practice; Strong potential to support further studies |
11-15 pts |
Originality (Total of 15 pts) |
|
| Lack of new ideas; No novel methods; Repeats prior work |
0-5 pts |
| Some original elements; Some original methods; Approach offers some innovation |
6-10 pts |
| New concepts or hypotheses; Innovative methods or ideas; Novel approach or design |
11-15 pts |
Research plan (Total of 25 pts) |
|
| Poorly described; Approach unrealistic or impractical; Analysis plan incomplete; Ethical statement lacking; Lack of clear relationship to hypothesis; Methodologic weaknesses; Unrealistic timeline |
0-10 pts |
| Some or most elements described clearly; Methodology acceptable; Some information about analysis plan; Ethical plan mentioned; Relates somewhat to hypothesis; Some methodologic weaknesses; Possible to accomplish in the time available. |
10-15 pts |
| Described clearly and completely; Relates clearly to stated aims; Analysis plan clear and appropriate; Clear ethics statement; Clear relationship to addressing hypothesis; Few to no methodologic weaknesses; Realistic to accomplish in the time available |
20-25 pts |
Team capacity (Total of 10 pts) |
|
| The research team does not demonstrate capability and expertise to execute the project, and/or lacks access to infrastructure, equipment, and facilities necessary for the project |
0-3 pts |
| The research team has good capability and expertise to execute the project, as well as access to infrastructure, equipment, and facilities necessary for the project |
4-7 pts |
| The research team has exceptional capability and expertise to execute the project, as well as access to infrastructure, equipment, and facilities necessary for the project |
8-10 pts |
Budget, budget justification (Total of 15 pts) |
|
| Unrealistic; Budget justification lacking or incomplete; Inappropriate; Too much focus on travel or senior investigator costs |
0-5 pts |
| Mostly realistic; Justification present but limited; Most elements appropriate |
6-10 pts |
| Realistic for the project; Justification clear and appropriate; Targeted toward appropriate expenditures |
11-15 pts |
Relation to ISTM (Total of 10 pts) |
|
| Unrelated to ISTM goals; No statement relating to ISTM goals |
0-3 pts |
| Some relation to ISTM goals; ISTM mentioned |
4-7 pts |
| Clear relationship to ISTM goals; Statement of relationship to ISTM |
8-10 pts |
| Total for Each Proposal - Maximum of 100 points | |