For GLAS submissions, the Scientific Advisory Committee urges applicants to adhere to the principles and guidelines of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for a “strict application of the scientific method to ensure robust and unbiased experimental design, methodology, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of results.” Furthermore, the biological variable of sex should be factored into GLAS studies, where appropriate.

The Standard and Small GLAS Grant programs differ in the criteria for award selection, also known as review criteria. By knowing these criteria, you can better show how your proposal measures up to these criteria as you prepare the Statement of Work.

Click the grant types below to display the review criteria.

Standard GLAS Application Review Criteria:

1. Relevance to and consistency with respect to the GLAS mission to enhance scientific knowledge in laboratory animal health and welfare through research:

  • Will the proposed work enhance knowledge in laboratory animal health and welfare vs. a study that serves only to advance knowledge in another field?

2. Impact on the field of laboratory animal science field:

  • Does the proposal address a current problem or issue affecting the broader laboratory animal community?
  • Will the results of this study affect what we do on a daily basis or alter a current practice in laboratory animal science?

3. Validity of the hypothesis:

  • Is the hypothesis clearly stated and is the key study aim(s) well defined?
  • If multiple aims are proposed, is each aim independent of all other aims, i.e. not dependent on the success of another aim(s)?
  • Is the proposal supported by background information such as cited scientific literature, preliminary data, or detailed rationale? Are these elements clearly presented in the proposal?

4. Validity of methodology and analysis:

  • Is the proposed study clearly described from beginning to end?
  • Does the proposal describe analysis by an appropriate statistical method where applicable?
  • Will the methods and analysis provide for acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis?
  • Is the study likely to generate adequate data for publication?

5. Feasibility and capability to complete the project, i.e., collective investigator experience, equipment access, and budget:

  • Do the investigators have the expertise/experience to complete the proposed work? Do the investigators have access to appropriate consultants or collaborators with subject matter expertise (e.g., statisticians)?
  • Do the investigators have access to equipment required for the proposed work?
  • Is the budget appropriately itemized, reasonable, and justified? How much salary is being requested and for whom? Are there major equipment requests?

Please note: The GLAS Program does not cover indirect/overhead expenses or publication submission fees. In general, the Standard Grant program discourages salary support and major equipment purchases. If included, these requests require detailed justification. The Standard Grant provides up to $1,000 for travel expenses to the AALAS National Meeting to present the GLAS-supported data.

Small GLAS Application Review Criteria:

1. Relevance to and consistency with respect to the GLAS mission to enhance scientific knowledge in laboratory animal health and welfare through research:

  • Will the proposed work enhance knowledge in laboratory animal health and welfare vs. a study that serves only to advance knowledge in another field?

2. Potential for impact on the laboratory animal science field:

  • Does the proposal address a current problem or issue affecting the broader laboratory animal community?
  • Will the results of this study affect what we do on a daily basis or alter a current practice in laboratory animal science?
  • Will successful completion of this work lead to a larger scale study or serve as the basis for larger funding opportunity relevant to the field?

3. Validity of the hypothesis or study goal(s):

  • Is the hypothesis or study goal(s) clearly stated? Is the key study aim(s) well defined?
  • If multiple aims are proposed, is each aim independent of all other aims, i.e., not dependent on the success of another aim(s)?
  • Is the proposal supported by background information such as cited scientific literature or detailed rationale? Are these elements clearly presented in the proposal?

4. Validity of methodology and analysis:

  • Is the proposed study clearly described from beginning to end?
  • Does the proposal describe analysis by an appropriate statistical method where applicable?
  • Will the methods and analysis provide for acceptance/rejection of the hypothesis or accomplish study goal(s)?
  • Is the study likely to generate adequate data for publication?

5. Feasibility – qualifications of the research team and available resources.

  • Do the investigators have the expertise/experience to complete the proposed work? Do the investigators have access to appropriate consultants or collaborators with subject matter expertise (e.g., statisticians)?
  • Do the investigators have access to equipment required for the proposed work?
  • Is the budget reasonable?

Please note: the Small Grant program does not cover overhead, investigator salaries, major equipment, travel, or publication submission fees.