Any policy or ethical concerns are then raised for discussion. If there is a serious concern, the Chair will ask for a motion to refer the issue to the Research Committee for review and resolution. A simple majority is required to refer the application. If the motion passes, the secondary reviewer is asked to fully record the reasons for the referral and any recommended actions. If a disparity of 2.0 or more exists between the high and low scores, a revote is required.
Discussion is reopened.
The purpose of the discussion is to ensure that there has been sufficient exploration of differing viewpoints in order that the applicant receives a fair review. The second vote stands, even if a 2 point spread remains. The secondary reviewer is responsible for recording any important new information that was brought out in the discussion that was not contained in the primary or secondary reviewers' critiques. This is particularly important when the new information resulted in the downgrading of the proposal. This information will be provided to the applicant along with the critiques.