Research Grants
2024-2025 Research Awards is Now Open!
Details
The ISTM Research and Awards Committee is pleased to announce that applications for the 2024-2025 ISTM Research Awards will be accepted through 31 January 2025.
The 2024-2025 Research Awards will be available in three main categories:
- General travel medicine projects;
- Projects by investigators in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs);
- Projects by new investigators; (< 5 years practicing travel medicine or longer travel medicine practice with no prior research funding).
It is expected that these grants will stimulate travel medicine research by providing support for pilot studies to enable researchers to collect data or test hypotheses for future larger projects. Typical awards will be in the range of USD 10,000 to USD 15,000.
Award requirements include:
- Research must be travel medicine or immigrant/refugee health oriented.
- Project proposal must be scientifically sound and must be in accordance with international ethical guidelines.
- IRB approval is to be secured within 6 months of notice of award.
- There must be no conflicts of interest for any of the investigators who apply for research funding.
- Grant applicants must be ISTM members in good standing.
- Projects should be able to be realistically completed using ISTM grant funding alone.
- Studies are to begin within 1 year of notice of award.
- A progress report will be sent to the ISTM Research and Awards Committee every year with a final report submitted at the conclusion of the project.
- A research paper must be submitted to initially to the Journal of Travel Medicine within one year of completion of the project, it does not guarantee acceptance of the paper.
Remember – All Research Award proposals must be sent to the ISTM Professional Team at [email protected] no later than 31 January 2025 to be considered. Proposals submitted after the deadline will not be considered.
2024-2025 Research Awards
Scoring of Proposals
All proposals received by the deadline will go through a peer-review process with consensus (or 75% majority) regarding the awarding of a grant.
The following system is used to score each proposal:
Details | Points |
Hypothesis, and objectives | Total: 10 pts |
No hypothesis or objectives | 0-2 pts |
Hypothesis and/or objectives are vague or not stated clearly | 4-6 pts |
Hypothesis clearly stated. Objectives clear, achievable, and realistic | 8-10 pts |
Significance | Total: 15 pts |
Narrow focus; Minimal interest; Not likely to contribute to increased knowledge or practice change; Unlikely to stimulate additional studies | 0-5 pts |
Limited to moderate general interest; Some potential for change of practice or to support further study | 6-10 pts |
Study is doable and will be of wide general interest; Potential to contribute to practice change or evidence basis of current practice; Strong potential to support further studies | 11-15 pts |
Originality | Total: 15 pts |
Lack of new ideas; No novel methods; Repeats prior work | 0-5 pts |
Some original elements; Some original methods; Approach offers some innovation | 6-10 pts |
New concepts or hypotheses; Innovative methods or ideas; Novel approach or design | 11-15 pts |
Research plan | Total: 25 pts |
Poorly described; Approach unrealistic or impractical; Analysis plan incomplete; Ethical statement lacking; Lack of clear relationship to hypothesis; Methodologic weaknesses; Unrealistic timeline | 0-10 pts |
Some or most elements described clearly; Methodology acceptable; Some information about analysis plan; Ethical plan mentioned; Relates somewhat to hypothesis; Some methodologic weaknesses; Possible to accomplish in the time available. | 10-15 pts |
Described clearly and completely; Relates clearly to stated aims; Analysis plan clear and appropriate; Clear ethics statement; Clear relationship to addressing hypothesis; Few to no methodologic weaknesses; Realistic to accomplish in the time available | 20-25 pts |
Total capacity | Total: 10 pts |
The research team does not demonstrate capability and expertise to execute the project, and/or lacks access to infrastructure, equipment, and facilities necessary for the project | 0-3 pts |
The research team has good capability and expertise to execute the project, as well as access to infrastructure, equipment, and facilities necessary for the project | 4-7 pts |
The research team has exceptional capability and expertise to execute the project, as well as access to infrastructure, equipment, and facilities necessary for the project | 8-10 pts |
Budget, budget justification | Total: 15 pts |
Unrealistic; Budget justification lacking or incomplete; Inappropriate; Too much focus on travel or senior investigator costs | 0-5 pts |
Mostly realistic; Justification present but limited; Most elements appropriate | 6-10 pts |
Realistic for the project; Justification clear and appropriate; Targeted toward appropriate expenditures | 11-15 pts |
Relation to ISTM | Total: 10 pts |
Unrelated to ISTM goals; No statement relating to ISTM goals | 0-3 pts |
Some relation to ISTM goals; ISTM mentioned | 4-7 pts |
Clear relationship to ISTM goals; Statement of relationship to ISTM |
8-10 pts |
Total for Each Proposal | Maximum: 100 points |