communities

Real-World Evidence Research Proposal Competition

Real-World Evidence Research Proposal Competition 

Summary and Rules Document (March 5, 2025) 

 

Goals 

  1. Foster student engagement within ISPE and collaboration among peers 

  1. Provide ISPE student membership an opportunity for engagement with experts in pharmacoepidemiology  

  1. Enhance pharmacoepidemiology proposal writing skills among students 

 

Competition Overview 

  • Participants will assemble a team of up to three student scientists 

  • Teams will submit research proposal on any topic of interest that includes the use of real-world data 

  • Pharmacoepidemiology experts will review and score proposals based on predefined criteria 

  • The team with the highest score will be announced as winners at the 2025 Annual Meeting Awards Session 

  • The winning team will present their proposal at a webinar in Fall 2025 

 

Key Dates and Timeline: 

  • Registration Opens: March 5th, 2025 

  • Registration Deadline: March 31st, 2025, 11:59 PM (ET) 

  • Proposal Submission Deadline: April 30th, 2025, 11:59 PM (ET) 

  • Review Period: May 1st - June 16th 

  • Winners Notified and Reviews Returned to Students: June 27th 

  • Winners Announcement: ISPE Annual Meeting August 22-26, 2025 

  • Winner Presentation: Fall 2025 

 

Incentives to compete 

  • Winning Team 

  • Recognition at ISPE Annual Meeting 2025 awards session and certificate 

  • Present proposal at ISPE Student Council webinar in Fall 2025 

  • All competing teams  

  • Receive extensive feedback from pharmacoepidemiology experts on their research proposal  

  • Teams have an option to set up a brief meeting after the competition to discuss the submission with reviewers, as they are available. 

 

Competition Rules 

  • Teams  

  • Teams can consist of one to three students 

  • One team member will be designated corresponding author  

  • The corresponding author must be a student member of ISPE 

  • Other team members do not need to be ISPE members 

  • Team members do not need to all be affiliated with the same institution  

  • All members must be students at the time of submitting the teams for the competition  

  • Students who graduate before the competition is complete are eligible to compete 

  • Teams are allowed to consult with faculty advisors (or other non-student experts) but advisors are not permitted to contribute a level of effort that would qualify them as an author of the proposal   

  • Registration 

  • Teams must register using the Participant Sign-up form by the enrollment deadline 

  • The form will also be posted in the Student Council’s ISPE Exchange Page and social media pages  

  • No late registrations will be allowed 

 

  • Proposal  

  • Submit proposals via Email to the ISPE Student Council Gmail Account by 11:59 PM (EST) on April 30, 2025 

  • Submit one PDF document including a cover page, proposal (4 pages), and references 

  • The proposal should be submitted by primary author using the email account that was used to register for the competition 

  • Proposals are limited to 4 pages and should include:  

  • Background 

  • Significance 

  • Research question, specific aims, and hypotheses 

  • Methods 

  • Data source, study population, exposure, outcome(s), addressing bias and confounding, analysis plan 

  • Limitations  

  • Formatting 

  • 11-point font, single spaced 

  • Arial, Georgia, Helvetica, Palatino Linotype 

  • One-inch margins 

  • Figures 

  • Figures are allowed, but are included in the overall page count 

  • References are separate from page count 

  • Cover Page 

  • Include the title of the proposal and team members names and affiliations 

  • Scoring 

  • Reviewers will score submissions using an evaluation rubric (see Appendix 1) 

  • The review form will have a comment box for each score category on what the student team did well and what needs improvement for that category 

  • Reviewers will score each of the following categories and score them 1 (lowest) - 4 (highest/best): background/introduction, significance, research question and hypotheses, methods, limitations 

  • All proposals will be scored by two reviewers 

  • The team with the highest average score for all categories will be the winning team 

  • In the case of ties, two reserve reviewers will be contacted to review the tied proposals and select the winner 

  • Neither reviewers nor submissions will be blinded 

 

Reviewers  

  • Reviewers will sign up by April 30  

  • Sign up through Reviewer Sign up Form 

  • Reviewers will indicate their affiliated institutions 

  • Each proposal will be reviewed by at least two reviewers 

  • Scores and critical feedback to be completed on Review Form (Appendix 1) 

  • Reviewers will be assigned to avoid any conflicts of interest (ex. a reviewer affiliated with University ABC will not review a proposal written by any students who attend University of ABC) 

 

Logistics/Administration 

Organizing registration and submission: 

  • The competition will be organized administratively by ISPE Student Council Members and proceed through 8 steps.   

  1. Participant Sign-up 

    • Participant Sign-up Form using Google form designed and managed by ISPE Student Council Gmail account 

  2. Reviewer Sign-up 

    • Reviewer Sign-up Form using Google form designed and managed by ISPE Student Council Gmail account 

  3. Participant Proposal Submission

    • Proposal Submission Form using Google form designed and managed by ISPE Student Council Gmail account 

  4. Distribution of Proposals to Reviewers 

    • ISPE Student Council members will randomly assign each proposal to two reviewers 

    • An individual reviewer will receive a single email containing each of the proposals to be reviewed by them as well as the blank review form (Appendix 1), and instructions 

  5. Reviewers Return Scores and Comments  

    • Each reviewer will email completed Scoring Forms back to the ISPE Gmail 

  6. Scoring

    • ISPE Student Council will compile the scores, determine the average scores for each team

      • Note that student council members involved with administration of the competition will not be allowed to compete in the competition 

    • Ties: if there is a tie for first place, reserve reviewers will be contacted for arbitration process (see above) 

  7. Distribution of comments to students and notification to winning team 

    • The ISPE Student Council will send the Score and Comments Form back to each student team (emailed to the team’s corresponding author) 

    • In this email, 

      • The winning team will be notified of their status with instructions on attending the awards session and presenting their work in at a webinar in the fall  

      • All other teams will be thanked for participation and welcomed to join in celebration at the Annual Meeting Awards Session and Webinar in the Fall 

  8. Webinar To Present Winning Proposal 

    • Webinar will take place in Fall 2025 

    • A 20 min presentation followed by question-and-answer session 

 

APPENDIX 1 

2025 ISPE Research Proposal Challenge 

Scoring Rubric 

Please complete one scoring rubric for each proposal you review. For each category, identify strengths and areas for improvement, ensuring that your comments are constructive and actionable. Your insights will play a crucial role in guiding the student teams towards success in pharmacoepidemiology research. 

 

Scoring: 

Utilize a scale of 1 to 4 for each category, with 1 being the lowest and 4 being the best. The winning team will be the one with the highest average score across all categories.  

 

Non-Blinded Review: 

Both reviewers and submissions will not be blinded. Transparent evaluations contribute to an open and fair assessment process. 

 

Optional Discussion with Participants:  

Please indicate below if you are available to schedule a brief meeting with the student team to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. Students may reach out to reviewers to plan a time to meet. 

Thank you for your commitment to excellence in research. Your time and expertise are invaluable to the success of this competition. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. 

 

Name(s) of Student Team Members:  

Title of Proposal:  

 

Name of Reviewer:  

Available to schedule a meeting to discuss: (Yes/No) 

If yes, email: 

 

  1. Background 

  • Score 4 (Best): Presents an exceptionally thorough literature review, pinpointing a specific knowledge gap with a compelling rationale; exhibits a comprehensive understanding of the field with no identified weaknesses. 

  • Score 3: a commendable literature review and identification of a knowledge gap. While overall strong, there may be one or a few minor weaknesses, such as the need for additional depth or clarification in certain areas. 

  • Score 2: Has a major weakness, affecting overall strength. This could involve a lack of clarity in identifying the knowledge gap or deficiencies in the literature review 

  • Score 1 (Lowest): Has multiple major weaknesses significantly impacting the proposal's quality. The identification of the knowledge gap may be unclear, and the literature review might lack depth or relevance.  

Score: 

Comments:  

 

  1. Significance/Innovation  

  • Score 4 (Best): Clearly and strongly describes the importance of the proposed research in addressing a pertinent problem or gap in knowledge. The presentation is compelling, highlighting the critical relevance of the study with no identified weaknesses. Provide how this project is innovative and could have a public health impact. 

  • Score 3: Effectively communicates the importance of the proposed research in addressing a relevant problem or knowledge gap. While strong overall, there may be one or a few minor weaknesses, such as the need for additional depth or clarification in certain areas. 

  • Score 2: Has a major weakness impacting overall strength. This could involve a lack of clarity in conveying the importance of the research or deficiencies in addressing the relevant problem or knowledge gap.  

  • Score 1 (Lowest): Has multiple major weaknesses significantly impacting the proposal's quality. The demonstration of the research's importance may be unclear, and the addressing of the relevant problem or knowledge gap might lack depth or relevance.  

Score:  

Comments:  

 

  1. Research Question and hypotheses 

  • Score 4 (Best): Clearly and strongly articulates well-defined research question, specific aims, and hypotheses that precisely align with the research question. The objectives are focused and achievable, with no identified weaknesses. 

  • Score 3: Effectively communicates well-defined research question, specific aims, and hypotheses that align with the research question. While strong overall, there may be one or a few minor weaknesses, such as the need for additional precision or clarification in certain areas. The objectives remain generally focused and achievable. 

  • Score 2: Has a major weakness in articulating the research question, specific aims or hypotheses, impacting overall strength. This could involve a lack of clarity in alignment with the research question or deficiencies in focusing on achievable objectives.  

  • Score 1 (Lowest): Has multiple major weaknesses significantly impacting the proposal's quality. The articulation of the research question, specific aims, or hypotheses may be unclear, and the focus on achievable objectives might lack depth or relevance.  

Score:  

Comments:  

 

  1. Methods 

  • Score 4 (Best): Presents a rigorous and meticulously described pharmacoepidemiology research methods that align closely with the study objectives. The data source, study population, exposure, outcome(s), approach to address bias and confounding, and analysis plan are clear and there are no significant weaknesses. 

  • Score 3: Effectively details pharmacoepidemiology research methods that align well with the study objectives. While strong overall, there may be one or a few minor weaknesses, such as the need for additional clarity or elaboration in certain areas of the methods including the data source, study population, exposure, outcome(s), approach to address bias and confounding, or analysis plan. 

  • Score 2: Research methods have a major weakness, impacting overall strength. This could involve a lack of clarity in aligning with the study objectives, deficiencies in explaining the data source, study population, exposure, outcome(s), approach to address bias and confounding, analysis plan, or inappropriate selection of methods for the study aims.  

  • Score 1 (Lowest): Has multiple major weaknesses significantly impacting the proposal's quality. The description of research methods may be unclear. The description of data source, study population, exposure, outcome(s), approach to address bias and confounding, and analysis plan might lack depth or relevance, or the selection of methods are inappropriate for the study aims.  

Score:  

Comments:  

 

  1. Limitations 

  • Score 4 (Best): Provides a comprehensive identification and acknowledgment of potential limitations in the study design or approach. The discussion reflects a profound understanding of the impact these limitations may have on the research, leaving no unidentified weaknesses. 

  • Score 3: Effectively addresses potential limitations in the study design or approach. While strong overall, there may be one or a few minor weaknesses, such as the need for additional depth or clarity in certain areas of the discussion regarding the impact of these limitations. 

  • Score 2: Has a major weakness in addressing potential limitations, impacting overall strength. This could involve a lack of comprehensive identification or acknowledgment of limitations, or deficiencies in the discussion of their impact.  

  • Score 1 (Lowest): Has multiple major weaknesses significantly impacting the proposal's quality. The identification and acknowledgment of potential limitations may be incomplete, and the discussion regarding their impact might lack depth or relevance.  

Score:  

Comments: