Application Procedures
The application procedure for getting ARGUS funding is fairly straightforward. You will submit an application that consists of a cover sheet, a brief proposal, and the names of persons who have agreed to write letters of recommendation. The proposal will be read by several faculty members who use certain evaluation criteria to determine if your project will be a success. When all proposals for a given funding cycle (fall, spring, summer) have been evaluated, you will be notified if you will be funded or not.

Complete proposals are due at the following deadlines:

• Fall: April 22
• Spring: December 1
• Summer: March 1

For Students

1. Find a topic and choose a sponsor.
2. Request two letters of recommendation. One should be from your research sponsor. Recommenders should be asked to submit letters electronically via email.
3. Upon approval, perform research/creative activity under the guidance of your faculty sponsor.
4. Present the project at the undergraduate research fair in April.

The ARGUS Application
The application should be word-processed and follow a commonly accepted style in your discipline. Ask your sponsor for guidelines. It should contain all of the following information:

Cover Sheet
Please put all of the following information, in the order listed, on a single page on top of your proposal:

1. "ARGUS Proposal" -- a big, bold heading centered at the top of the sheet
2. The date of your proposal
3. Project title -- descriptive but not too long
4. Your name, campus address, campus phone number, email address
5. Your faculty sponsor's name, division, phone number, email address
6. Funding period requested -- block(s), semester(s), year(s)
7. Names of two AU faculty members, one of whom is your sponsor, from whom you have already requested letters of recommendation for this project (see below)

Project Proposal

1. Abstract -- one page, comprehensible by a faculty member in any division
2. Introduction -- background and statement of the problem, reference to literature (for justification, rationale, methods, but not necessarily a literature review), questions, hypotheses, objectives (specific and detailed)
3. Methods -- experimental design, special techniques and equipment (with evidence you know or will learn how to use them), descriptions of study sites, plans to analyze and present anticipated results
4. Schedule -- a time line of what you expect to have accomplished and when; list several milestones that can be evaluated to monitor your progress
5. Budget -- detailed; list all items (permanent equipment and consumable supplies) that you expect to purchase and realistic cost estimates (catalog prices); also provide for travel, software, and all other aspects of your project related to doing the project itself. Do not include request for funds to travel to professional meetings to present your project. If this is desired, there are other funding sources at the university for those purposes.
6. References -- citations from the literature, if any, with complete and unabbreviated bibliographic information
7. Appendix -- additional items, if any, that support your proposal

What happens when a proposal is submitted?

1. The Chair of the ARGUS Committee will collate proposals and recommendations and notify the student if materials are missing.
2. ARGUS Committee member(s) in the unit in which the research is to be done will solicit reviewers from among the faculty, based on faculty expertise and the topic of the research.
3. Once reviews are complete, the ARGUS Committee will meet to discuss reviews and determine which proposals will be funded.
4. The student and sponsor will be notified if the project will be funded. If the project will not be funded, the student will be given reasons.

Proposal Criteria
The ARGUS proposal will be reviewed by several faculty members. The objectives and general approach of your proposal should be clear to all of them. They will evaluate your proposal using the criteria below. If your proposal is not funded, you may receive a collation of the comments of the reviewers. They will indicate the areas of your proposal that need improvement, and will give you specific suggestions on how to improve them. Overall, proposals will be evaluated for intellectual merit, originality, creativity, and the potential for advancing your field. Specifically, reviewers will evaluate the following:

Abstract

• Is there an abstract?
• Is the project clearly defined? 

Introduction

• Does the introduction provide a context for the problem?
• Does the introduction acknowledge or refer to other work in the field/discipline (for example, library references, and references to other media)?
• Is the underlying question which prompted the research topic identified?
• Are some of the possible answers/predictions to the question provided?

Methods

• Is there a feasible plan or process to answer the question?
• For the more scientific and analytic projects, is it clear how the data will be analyzed?
• For the more creative projects, is it clear what kind of activities will be undertaken?
• Is it clear how the results will be organized and presented? 

Schedule

• Is there a specific timeline? 
• Are deadlines clear and reasonable?
• Can progress be easily monitored by the ARGUS sponsor?

• Is there a realistic estimate for supplies and equipment (travel, photocopying, interlibrary loan, software, chemicals)?