Research proposal

The mentored research experience is a key component of the Postdoctoral Master's Degree Program in clinical and translational science.

Students develop their research proposals in CTSC 5010: Clinical Research Proposal Development, with a deadline based on the academic cycle listed below. Members of the CCaTS Scientific Review Group review research proposals, and the Master's and Certificate Programs Executive Committee approves them.

Enrollment in CTSC 5010: Clinical Research Proposal Development Proposal submission
Fall quarter Feb. 1
Spring quarter Aug. 1

Include these items in your proposal packet:

  • Research Proposal Packet Cover Page (PDF).
  • The proposal. Research proposals are approved by the CCaTS Master's and Certificate Programs Executive Committee and Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (MCGSBS). Follow the Research Proposal Guidelines (PDF), and construct your specific aims in a way that clearly defines the publications resulting from the proposal.
  • Research Proposal Project Timeline form.
  • Translational Impact Statement. In one paragraph or a maximum of one page, describe the translational gap that your project will fill. You may include key literature that helped you identify that gap.
  • Team Science Statement. This statement should be at least one paragraph long and can be up to one page. Your description of team science is an opportunity to share more than just who is on your team and Thesis Advisory Committee. It is the story of your emergence as the leader of your project. Please consider including the following components:
    • Names. Your name should be first.
    • Member expertise. Stick to the expertise that has value for this specific proposal.
    • Role. This is the category or categories that the team member will represent to this proposal. This is similar to considering author contributions for a paper submission. Will this person:
      • Help collect data?
      • Train the student leader on necessary skills?
      • Provide mentorship for the student leader for their research?
    • Communication. How will the team meet? For example, in person or online? How often? How will the team resolve differences of opinion? What is the structure of meetings? Be clear about how you are situated in this structure.
    • Final statement. Include a statement such as, "This team brings together fields of expertise that uniquely allow us to achieve [define a positive outcome]."
    • Audience. Remember that you want to be writing for a broad readership. Limit your use of jargon and strive for clarity whenever possible
  • Current curricula vitae for you and your mentor.

  • Thesis Advisory Committee (TAC) form. Complete the Proposed Master Thesis Advisory Committee form (PDF). All TAC members are expected to provide scientific peer review and approve your proposal prior to submission. After your TAC has been approved by the CCaTS Master’s and Certificate Programs Executive Committee, the program staff will submit the MCGSBS TAC e-form on your behalf.

    Read more about the Thesis Advisory Committee.

  • CCaTS Minimal Risk Study form (PDF), if applicable.
  • IRB approval email notification. This email notification documents that IRB review of your proposal was completed and approved. If the IRB has not yet approved your proposal, submit the email notification when approved. If your proposal is part of a larger project, please submit the IRB approval for the larger project.
  • Research Proposal Potential Reviewers (PDF).

Research proposal review criteria

The CCaTS Master's and Certificate Programs Executive Committee considers whether the thesis that will result from the proposal has the potential to meet the prescribed thesis standards and is feasible within the time frame identified. Proposals are reviewed by the CCaTS Scientific Review Group using these criteria:

  • Clinical or translational research. Does the project meet the definition of clinical or translational research? If an animal model is being studied, has the scholar justified its significance to human disease?
  • Scientific peer review. Is the hypothesis significant? Is the study design valid? Is the data collection and analysis plan consistent with the study goal? Is there statistical justification?
  • IRB review. Has IRB approval for the project been obtained, or is it pending? If the scholar's project is part of a larger project, has documentation been provided showing IRB approval for the larger project?
  • Authorship. Will the scholar be the first author on publications resulting from this project? If the scholar's project is part of a larger, multiauthor study, has the scholar explained the contribution to authorship? Will the project result in at least one publication?
  • Feasibility. Is there sufficient funding for the project? Is there sufficient time to collect data and recruit participants? Does the project align with the scholar's research interests?
  • Recruitment plan. Has a satisfactory subject recruitment plan, including a timeline, been provided?
  • Current status. Has the status of the project been provided? For example, "Fifty percent of the data are collected, with data collection expected to be complete in six months."