Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	002ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	Qualifications Count: Why Women Must be Better than Men to Win Political Office	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Nichole Bauer	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	005ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	A Place for People: Society and Culture on Louisiana’s Fragile Coast	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Craig Colten	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	017ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	Modern Pupillometry: Cognition, Neuroscience, and Practical Applications	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Megan Papesh	
Amount Requested	$28,827	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	023ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	Acquiring Word Prosody in Second Language Learning	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Irina Shport	
Amount Requested	$23,376	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	024ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	Publication of an Online Database of Colonial Maps for the Analysis of Social and Environmental Change in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Andrew Sluyter	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	026ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	A Political Economy of Piracy and Maritime Crime	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Daniel Tirone	
Amount Requested	$49,994	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	042ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	Historical Ecology of the Lower Amazon	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/William Balee	
Amount Requested	$49,999	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	046ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	Parental Migration Caretaking Arrangements and Children’s Wellbeing in Rural China	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Xiaojin Chen	
Amount Requested	$48,493	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	047ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	Dictatorship and Information: Autocratic Regime Resilience in Communist Europe and China	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Martin Dimitrov	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

 Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	049ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	Psychologist: Reluctant Warrior in Care for the Seriously Ill	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Michael Hoerger	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	051ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	The Making of an Ancient City: Materiality of Power and Identity at Teotihuacan	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Tatsuya Murakami	
Amount Requested	$44,074	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	053ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	The Liberalism Trap: John Stuart Mill and Our Crisis of Certainty	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Menaka Philips	
Amount Requested	$46,926	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	058ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	Gold Matters: Materializing Money in Vietnam at the End of the Twentieth Century	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Allison Truitt	
Amount Requested	$49,333	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	064ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	New Orleans Historical Live! Revitalizing a Local Register of Historic Places	
Submitting Institution/PI	UNO/Fallon Aidoo	
Amount Requested	$51,979*	
* Multiple-investigator projects permitted to request >$50,000

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________