The GSS Travel Grant is highly competitive. Funding decisions and grant amounts are based on individual financial need and the strength of submitted application materials. This page explains how applications are evaluated, who reviews them, and what reviewers consider. Applicants are encouraged to review this information before preparing their submission.
Applications are assessed holistically. No single factor determines an outcome — reviewers weigh each element together to form a complete picture of financial need, opportunity, and application quality.
What Reviewers Evaluate
Reviewers consider each application across these five dimensions:
- Scholarly or professional merit of the opportunity and proposed work. Reviewers assess the significance of the event or opportunity, the quality of the work being presented or showcased, the applicant’s role, and the relevance of the travel to the applicant’s field and professional trajectory.
- Quality, clarity, and accessibility of the abstract or project description. Because these materials carry substantial weight in committee scoring, reviewers look for clear, well-organized writing, a well-defined contribution, and an explanation that is accessible even to readers outside the applicant’s specialty.
- Impact on the applicant, their scholarship, and the broader field. Competitive applications clearly demonstrate how the travel will advance the applicant’s research, training, or professional development, contribute meaningfully to their discipline, and, where relevant, enhance institutional visibility.
- Financial need and budget reasonableness. Reviewers consider whether the applicant demonstrates genuine financial need, whether projected costs are realistic and appropriately itemized, and how those costs compare with other funding the applicant expects or has pursued from advisors, departments, colleges, or external sources.
- Alignment with institutional and committee priorities. Applications may also be evaluated on how well they support broader institutional goals, including meaningful representation across disciplines and equitable consideration of opportunities in the arts, humanities, social sciences, and professional fields.
Together, these factors determine how an application is ranked within a given cycle.
Presenter Priority
Presenter applications receive priority consideration. Students who are giving a talk, presenting a poster, or otherwise contributing scholarly or creative work as part of the event are reviewed within that priority group.
Priority does not guarantee a grant and does not exempt presenter applications from the same evaluation standards applied to all submissions. Non-presenters may be eligible when the travel involves meaningful participation that supports scholarship, creative work, professional development, or representation of the university. Attendance alone is generally not competitive and may not qualify.
Invited vs. Open Call
This distinction applies across both presenter and non-presenter applications. When reviewing applications, the committee considers how participation was secured. Formal invitations — to present, perform, compete, or actively participate — generally reflect a higher level of external recognition than participation obtained through an open call, and are weighted accordingly in the review process.
Independent Review of Each Application
Each application is evaluated independently. The GSS Travel Grant Committee does not penalize students for coming from the same research group, program, or event.
Because funding decisions are based on individual financial need and the strength of each applicant’s materials, students from the same group or attending the same event may receive different grant amounts. Group or program affiliation does not factor into funding decisions in either direction.
Committee Review
Applications that advance to committee review are evaluated through a committee review process using a shared scoring rubric. This process is guided by NSF’s Gold Standard Science framework. Members of the GSS Travel Grant Committee assess each applicant’s abstract, impact statements, and supporting materials.
This approach ensures consistent, equitable, and unbiased evaluation across disciplines. Scholarly, creative, clinical, and professional work is reviewed according to the norms of each respective field.
Graduate School Review vs. Committee Review
Two distinct reviews shape the outcome of each application and serve different purposes.
- Graduate School review is conducted first. This is an administrative check for completeness, consistency, and eligibility. Applications that do not meet eligibility or submission requirements may be administratively rejected before committee review. Rejected applications are not eligible for resubmission.
- Committee review follows for all applications that clear the Graduate School. The GSS Travel Grant Committee evaluates submitted materials using a shared scoring rubric described above, then makes funding recommendations based on individual financial need and the strength of submitted materials.
Strengthening Your Application
The quality of the abstract and impact statements is a significant factor in committee scoring. Applicants are encouraged to:
- Draft clear, specific impact statements explaining how the opportunity advances their scholarship, training, or professional development
- Write the abstract for an educated reader outside their immediate field
- Report all costs and funding sources accurately and completely
- Describe their role at the event and its relevance to their academic or professional work
- Submit a complete, accurate application to reduce the risk of administrative rejection
For questions about the evaluation process or review criteria, contact the GSS Travel Grant Committee at [email protected]. Response times may take several business days, particularly near application deadlines.
Last updated on Sept 16, 2026, at 5:01 pm.