Review Board Guide on One Page
Blind Review
UROP guidelines require applicants to remove all personally identifiable information (PII) in their proposals, specifically that “proposals must not contain the student's or mentor's personal information (name and gender) to ensure the integrity of blind review.” If you encounter proposals that include the student and/or mentor’s name and/or gender, make a note in the comments section of the score sheet. UROP does not typically disqualify applications for including PII, but you may factor it into your scoring decision.
Disciplinary Categories
The Review Board is organized into six broadly defined disciplinary categories that align with the project proposal categories selected by students and faculty when applying. Proposals have been sorted into these categories and assigned to at least two reviewers. If you're assigned a proposal that doesn't seem to fit the category, you may score the proposal at your discretion and flag it for further review.
Arts & Humanities
Life & Biosciences
Business
Education
Social & Behavioral Sciences
Math, Physical Sciences & Engineering
Conflicts of Interest (COI)
You may skip scoring individual proposals as they present conflicts of interest by selecting "COI" on the score sheet; these proposals will be scored by other reviewers. We include this option to enable faculty applicants and mentors to participate fully in all aspects of the UROP process.
Scoring Instructions
Applications are evaluated in a double-blind review process and tracked using “sort numbers” that correspond to the rows on your score sheets. Please ensure the sort numbers align to those on your score sheets—and don't resort the score sheets.
Most reviewers will receive two “application packets” formatted as PDFs and named with their “review group. One packet includes student grant proposals; the other includes team grant proposals. Due to differences in the number of reviewers and proposals submitted, you might not be assigned a second packet of team grant proposals.
After reviewing the proposals, enter your evaluations on the attached score sheets in the yellow columns to the right of the bold line. Due to differences in the scoring criteria for assistantships and individual grants, some cells on the score sheet will appear shaded in dark gray to indicate that a score is not needed for that criterion.
If you notice anything questionable about the proposal—e.g., eligibility issues, compliance plans, personally identifiable information or anything else of concern—please "flag for further review" on your score sheet.
Provide additional comments you would like UROP to consider.
Return scores to urop@colorado.edu by the date posted.
Holistic Considerations
Please keep in mind that you are concurrently assessing the project’s merit and the student’s potential learning experience—a question of fit and a plan for success. In addition to the criteria below, we encourage you to take holistic considerations into account.
Questions to Consider
- Do the student and mentor have a strong working relationship or plan to develop their ability to collaborate?
- Does the student have ownership of the proposed work or state objectives that will enable them to engage their field?
Proposals supported by strong working relationships
- show students and mentors “on the same page”
- outline appropriately scaled projects with a reasonable plan
- accurately communicate contributions to the larger field
Review Timeline
The next cycle will score proposals for Summer 2026 and Aca. Year 2026-27. Sign up to review by March 6, 2026, to be included in this year's cycle.
An error has occured - please check your filters and try again
An error has occured with the API - please try again later
Empower inspiring students with transformative opportunities.