See:
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/f_awards/f30_guide_for_reviewers.pdf
Candidate potential - typically all are very good
Institutional Environment - typically all are very good
Mentor - there are some potential fatal flaws
Training Potential - often some flaws
Training Plan - most common flaw
Science is the vehicle for training and it is typically reviewed by a non-field expert. As an Epileptologist, I had to review many proposals outside of my area of expertise. You must be writing your Specific Aims page with that in mind.
What is written below was part of the instructions available to reviewers in the NIH website. I couldn't find a link for F30 reviewer instructions:
1. Fellowship Applicant.
Are the applicant's academic record and research experience of high quality? Are the applicant’s interests consistent with a career as a physician-scientist or other clinician-scientist? Does the applicant have the potential to develop into an independent and productive contributor to biomedical, behavioral or clinical science as a physician-scientist or clinician-scientist? Does the applicant demonstrate commitment to a career as a physician-scientist or other clinician-scientist?
2. Sponsors, Collaborators, and Consultants.
Are the sponsor(s’) research qualifications (including recent publications) and track record of mentoring individuals at a similar stage appropriate for the needs of the applicant? Is there evidence of a match between the research and clinical interests of the applicant and the sponsor(s)? Do the sponsor(s) demonstrate an understanding of the applicant’s training needs as well as the ability and commitment to assist in meeting these needs? Is there evidence of adequate research funds to support the applicant’s proposed research project and training for the duration of the research component of the fellowship? If a team of sponsors is proposed, is the team structure well justified for the mentored training plan, and are the roles of the individual members appropriate and clearly defined? Are the qualifications of any collaborator(s) and/or consultant(s), including their complementary expertise and previous experience in fostering the training of fellows, appropriate for the proposed project?
3. Research Training Plan.
Is the proposed research plan of high scientific quality, and is it well integrated with the proposed research training plan? Based on the sponsor’s description of his/her active research program, is the applicant’s proposed research project sufficiently distinct from the sponsor’s funded research for the applicant’s career stage? Is the research project consistent with the applicant's stage of research development? Is the training plan well-reasoned, and likely to provide an effective, integrated research and clinical training experience and ease the transitions between the phases of the dual-degree program? Is the proposed time frame feasible to accomplish the proposed research and clinical training?
4. Training Potential.
Are the proposed research project and research and clinical training plan likely to provide the applicant with an integrated perspective and appropriate skills for a physician-scientist or other clinical-scientist? Does the training plan take advantage of the applicant’s strengths and address gaps in needed skills? Does the training plan document a clear need for, and value of, the proposed training? If applicable to the dual-degree program, are appropriate opportunities for electives, early and longitudinal clinical experiences, or other enhanced clinical training available to the applicant? Are appropriate opportunities available to ease the transition to clinical clerkships and for research electives during clinical training?
5. Institutional Environment & Commitment to Training.
Are the research facilities, resources (e.g. equipment, laboratory space, computer time, subject populations, clinical training settings), and training opportunities (e.g. seminars, workshops, professional development opportunities) adequate and appropriate? Is the institutional environment for the applicant’s scientific and clinical development of high quality? Are the facilities and resources appropriate to provide exposure to a research-oriented, clinical environment? Does the environment include individuals with similar training who will serve as role models for the applicant? Given the integrated nature of the training program, will appropriate advising be available to the applicant as he/she transitions between the research and clinical components of the integrated training program and to the next career stage? Is there appropriate institutional commitment to fostering the applicant's integrated training as a physician-scientist or other clinician-scientist? Does this commitment extend to support the applicant’s research and training, if needed, for the duration of the proposed award?
