Research Enhancement

The PROSPER Research Enhancement Awards will target three priority areas in order of importance.

  1. Seed or Pilot Funding: 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.
  2. Bridge Funding: This category of funding is to cover investigators who have shown a history of funding. 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 key personnel on the project). Evidence will be required to show that continued support of an investigator’s research program is currently being pursued and must include all appropriate review documentation.
  3. Equipment/Instrumentation support for purchase or maintenance: These awards are for either the purchase of new or replacement shared-equipment for college use. Likewise maintenance contracts of existing equipment must be for shared-equipment. 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.

During any given PROSPER cycle there will be no percentages set for the three target areas listed above. However, priority will be given to Seed/Pilot and Bridge Funding categories.

Individual Seed/Pilot or Bridge Funding awards are not to exceed $40,000 and may not be used cover PI or other faculty salary support (including expenses for consultants) or for support of stipend or tuition on graduate students.

PROSPER Research Enhancement proposal guidelines and review process:

Faculty interested in submitting research proposals should notify the Research Office in the College of Pharmacy for information on internal guidelines, selection procedures and deadlines for any given funding cycle.

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

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

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.

Proposals should consist of the following materials in this sequence:

  1. Cover Page: Include title, identify PROSPER target area (seed/pilot funding; bridge funding or equipment/instrumentation support), list of PIs, co-PIs and all faculty contributing time to the project and their departmental/college affiliations, email address of primary contact PI and budget request.
  2. Abstract: Explain the rationale for the work to be accomplished in terms that can be understood by an “intelligent non-expert.”
  3. Project Description
    • Up to four (4) pages of text MAXIMUM describing the project to include the following:
    • Specific Aims/Objectives
    • Background and Significance
    • Innovation/Potential Impact of Research
    • Approach/Research Design
    • Preliminary Data (if applicable)
    • For Equipment purchase and maintenance support- a justification of need and source of matching funds is required. Equipment requests must also include the plan for sharing use of the equipment and for equipment maintenance– 2 pages maximum.
  4. Literature Cited (no page limit)
  5. Key Personnel: A list of the individuals to be involved and details of their participation.
    Include a current biosketch of the Principal Investigator and each of the Co-PIs/Co- Investigators (NIH-style biosketch and a list of their currently funded research, including percent time commitment to each funded project (Maximum of 4 pages each investigator identified).
  6. A detailed budget and justification of expenses
    • Budgets should not exceed $40,000 for the entire project period.
    • The budget may include all normally allowable costs of research with the exception of faculty salaries and graduate student tuition and stipends, and indirect costs. The percent effort of each participating faculty member must be included in the budget justification.
    • Budgets may be for one year. Extensions will be considered with justification.
  7. Plans for continued support: Plan to obtain continuing external support for the project (1- 2 pages). Proposals must specifically list the sources of external support that will be pursued after funding provided by the PROSPER award. This section must be carefully thought out to provide a detailed work plan on future additional submissions to external agencies.

Review Process

Proposals submitted to the college’s Office of Research will be reviewed by faculty review panels that will be determined on each review cycle based on expertise needed. The review committee will consist of at least two senior and one junior faculty member within the college and a minimum of one (usually two) faculty members with needed expertise external to the college, but within the university.

The faculty review panels will make recommendations to the Associate Dean for Administration and Research Affairs, who will also serve as ex officio chair of the review committee.

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

  1. Significance and Innovation: (For 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, services, 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? 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.
  2. Approach: Does the application represent a new conceptual/multidisciplinary approach to the identified problem? Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, well-reasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?
  3. Likelihood of obtaining external support: Do the investigators present reasonable plans to garner extramural support from specific funding agencies? Is the proposed timeline reasonable?
  4. 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? Is there evidence of the ability of the team of investigators to work together in an interdisciplinary fashion?
  5. Environment/Resources: Do the proposed studies benefit from unique features of the scientific environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Do the PIs have the additional resources (e.g., equipment) to successfully accomplish their goals?
  6. Budget: Is the requested budget appropriate for the scope of work?