Research Enhancement

Applications for PROSPER Research Enhancement funds will be accepted in 5 categories:

Clinical Faculty Research Seed awards

These awards provide resources to clinical faculty to show the feasibility and/or obtain preliminary data for applications to AACP, ACCP, ASHP, foundations, or other sources.   It is expected that these proposals are submitted at least 6 months before the funding deadline, but that a full application will be submitted to an extramural source within 1 year.

Nontenure-track faculty with both clinical effort and scholarly effort included in their assignments are eligible to apply in this category.    These will be reviewed by a panel which includes clinical faculty and clinician-scientists.  It is expected that these will be submitted in the Fall and Spring cycles, however “off cycle” applications will also be considered.  Justification for an off cycle review should be submitted to the Associate Dean for Research prior to submission. The expected maximum award in this category is $10,000; larger proposals will be considered. For proposals requesting over $10,000 with justification to the Associate Dean for Clinical Affairs and Research and Graduate Education.

Applications in this category are limited to 3 pages which must include:

One page statement of aims: this should include a statement of the aims for the expected “full” application, and a description of the more limited aims/goals to be achieved with the PROSPER funding.

One page statement of approach including an overall strategy for recruitment and statistical analysis of the larger proposed project.

Statements on the innovation and significance of the project

Timeline for submission to an external agency (including which agency will be targeted)

An additional page for the budget is also allowed.

In the following 4 categories only faculty who are either tenure-track or supported >50% by the college are eligible to compete as PIs.  Soft-funded grant-funded) faculty may serve as co-Is, but not as PIs. Faculty will not be eligible for submission for PROSPER funding while they are PI or co-PI on another PROSPER award, or on a UF Opportunity Fund award or have an active extension of either of these awards; the exception to this will be serving as PI on a Shared Use Award.

Fast track awards: reviewed monthly

These applications must be based on the extramural review of an extramural proposal. These will be reviewed on a monthly basis by the COP Research Committee.

These awards are intended to provide small amounts of money quickly to allow faculty to provide additional data for previously unsuccessful, but generally well-reviewed, applications.

The maximum award in this category is $5000 from PROSPER, which must be matched by the department or a center.

Applications for a fast-track award must include the summary sheet of the reviewed extramural application.

All funded fast track proposals are intended to result in a submitted proposal on a timely basis; this proposal must be submitted for internal review at least 4 weeks prior to the funding agency deadline.

Applications are limited to 3 pages of additional text which must include:

  • The Specific aims page of the unsuccessful grant application (with the specific aim to be addressed using PROSPER funds highlighted)
  • One page response to review- focused on how PROSPER funding addresses the review
  • Brief statement of the approach
  • Timeline for experiments and resubmission

Grant review awards: reviewed monthly

This category is intended to support external review and/or assistance in grantsmanship. These applications will be reviewed on a monthly basis by the COP Research Committee.

This funding mechanism is limited to larger grants in the P or U series or to R grant submissions from assistant or associate professors who are unfunded.

This fund will provide up to $2000 and requires matching funds from the department(s) or center(s).

Applications are limited to 2 pages and must include:

  • Summary of the funding source and mechanism
  • Summary of grant structure/faculty involved/ overall aims
  • Include list of suggested reviewers and their suitability/expertise for this review
  • budget

Seed awards:

These proposals should be innovative, interdisciplinary, support college missions, and have strong potential for garnering future funding from external sources. These awards are not intended to supplement existing research programs, but rather to support new, novel research. The focus for funding will be on applications showing the need for preliminary data that will result in proposals to be submitted within 12-18 months of PROSPER award.

Funding is limited to a maximum of $40,000.

Two categories of seed funding will be considered:

  • Early stage investigator awards: Applicants who are Assistant or early Associate Professors. In the case of new hires who are still within their start-up package time- frame, the case for how this funding is critical over and beyond the requested start-up package must be made. The justification must include how these funds are necessary to obtain data for a grant submission that cannot be accomplished with the start-up .
  • Collaborative Investigator Awards: These may include more senior Associate or full Professors as PIs. These projects should be for new collaborations across departments or for seed funds for applications for large Multi-PI (ie P, U etc) or Center grants. Strong justification for how this will establish a new collaborative area of research is

Applications are limited to 5 pages of text which must include:

  • Specific aims
  • 2 pages of impact, innovation and approach including rationale for need for this data for the extramural proposal
  • Description of the faculty tea/key individuals in place to accomplish goals of the funding
  • Budget and timeline for submission of extramural grant

Letter of support from key personnel and biosketches are not included in the 5 page limit.

For faculty that have previously received PROSPER funding in the Seed category or Fast track category as PI, they must provide the following information on the submission resulting from the prior PROSPER funding: UFIRST proposal #, agency Grant #, title, submission date, and abstract.

Bridge Funding:

This category of funding is aimed to support investigators who have shown a history of funding. All levels of tenure track faculty are eligible for this award.

These awards can be sought prior to (but in anticipation of) the expiration of an existing grant, to help ensure continuation of funding (e.g. to avoid loss of personnel on the project). Evidence will be required to show that continued support of an investigator’s research program is being actively pursued.

Funding is limited to a maximum of $40,000.

Applications are limited to 5 pages of text which must include:

  • Specific aims
  • 2 pages of impact and approach
  • Team in place to accomplish goals/ key individuals
  • Budget and timeline for re-submission

Evidence of submission for extramural funding, and summary statements when available must be included.

Shared use awards:

These awards are for the purchase of shared-use major equipment or of large shared-use data sets.  In the case or shared use equipment, only equipment of over $100K will be considered.  Matching funds of at least 50% of the requested award will be required by PI and/or associated Departments/Centers to be eligible for these funds. In the case of equipment, contributions from appropriate Centers would also be expected.

Applications are limited to 3 pages and must include:

  • faculty who will use this resource
  • Sustainability plan
  • Use in existing projects (funded or not)
  • Timeline for new applications that will require this resource

General Research Enhancement Proposal requirements:

Formatting requirements: Single spacing; font size no smaller than 11 point; minimum 0.5 inch margins; tables and figure legends can be in 10 point font.

ALL APPLICATIONS FOR PROSPER Research Enhancement Funds must include a cover page including

  • the title
  • all faculty involved in the proposal
  • requested funding amount
  • any matching funding associated with the application
  • In the case of submissions that include matching funds from the department, the cover page must include the signature of the department chair (ie Fast Track Proposals, Grant review funding or Shared Resources applications)

PROSPER funds may not be used to cover PI or other faculty salary support, including expenses for consultants (except in the case of grant reviews).  Request for partial (i.e. <50%) support of a graduate student stipend or postdoctoral fellow may be requested. Travel expenses to meetings will also not be covered as an expense.

Proposals must be submitted electronically and emailed in Word or PDF format only as ONE file to: Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Education, Maureen Keller-Wood, PhD at and Mr. Jose Ortiz at

The PI’s Chair should be copied on all email submissions.

Review Process

Proposals submitted to the college’s Office of Research will be reviewed by a faculty review panel. The review committee will consist of members of the Research Committee, with substitutions to prevent conflicts of interest as appropriate. Other external faculty (non-COP UF faculty with appropriate expertise) will be recruited to supply reviews at the discretion of the Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Education.

The Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Education, who will serve as ex officio chair of the review committee. The committee recommendations will be reviewed by COP Executive Council, who will serve as the final decision point for award amounts and approvals.

An overall priority score will be assigned to each proposal keeping in mind the following review criteria:

Significance and Impact: (For fast track/seed/ pilot funding): Does this study address an important problem? Is the project original, multi/interdisciplinary and innovative? Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools, or technologies? What will be the impact of these studies on the methods, technologies, treatments, or preventative interventions that drive this area of research? Do the proposed outcomes represent a new paradigm for concepts in this area of research? Does the project represent a new direction of investigation for the faculty involved, or is it a new collaborative partnership? How will this funding support new applications for funding? Does the proposed project address the College’s and UF’s strategic goals?

(For bridge funding) Has the case for needed funding been clearly identified, are supporting documents provided that demonstrate the investigator is continuing to seek additional funding for their project?

Approach: Does the application represent a new conceptual/multidisciplinary approach to the identified problem? Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?

Likelihood of obtaining external support: Do the investigators present plans to garner extramural support from specific funding agencies? Do they make a cogent argument for the need for this funding to support the submission? Is the proposed timeline reasonable?

Investigators: Are the investigators appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers? Does the investigative team bring complementary and integrated expertise to the project?

Budget: Is the requested budget appropriate for the scope of work?

In the case of equipment requests, review will also consider the shared use plan and the plan for maintaining the instrument.