Dire Dawa University

College of Social Science and Humanities

Research and Community Service Coordinator Office
Criteria for Rating Proposals
Proposal Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guidelines for approval of research proposals Points
1 1. Alignment to the university research priority areas 15%
a. Technology related issues
b. Poverty reduction, and other development oriented issues
c. Health
d. Law, Governance and conflict management
e. Biotechnology
f. Climate change and Environmental Safety
g. Financial sector Development and Entrepreneurship
h. Language, culture and Identity
i. Heritage, and Tourism Development

2 2. Potential applicability of the proposed research 20%

a. To technology and knowledge transfer
b. To social and economic transformation of the country
c. To address the local area or nationwide problems
d. To build capacity;
3 3. Scientific quality 30 %
a. Clear presentation of justification and hypothesis
b. Appropriate use of methods for testing hypothesis
c. Appropriate design of experiment
d. Appropriate application of statistical methods for analyzing results
e. Originality of the proposed research

1
 4 4. Technical feasibility 20 %
a. Level of experiences and demonstrated ability of researcher (s) to
carry out the proposed research;
b. Available resources
c. realistic timelines and budget
5 5. Degree of collaboration, multidisciplinary and team work 15 %
a. Collaboration between international or developed country academic
research institutions and DDU;
b. Collaboration between other Universities or research institutions and
DDU;
c. Collaboration among staffs, Department, and Institutes/School of
DDU
Total 100%

Decision: ___________________________________ (Choose one of the following options)

Approved: The proposal successfully addresses all of the review criteria. No further action is
required from investigator (s) prior to initiating the study;

Clarification required: The proposal meets most or all of the review criteria, but lacks one or
more minor requirements that must be addressed in a review version. The proposal will
not require resubmission in a subsequent review cycle.

Revise and resubmit: The proposal fails to meet one or more of the major criteria, but is
deemed to be of sufficient potential merit to encourage a resubmission.

Rejected: The proposal fails to meet most or all review criteria, and does not have the required
scientific, professional or ethical merit.

Reviewer’s name ____________________________________ signature ________________