The completion of this entire form is required for ALL potential peer reviewers to submit an application. 

This form contains multiple pages. You have not completed the form until you click the "Click here to submit" button on the third page.

Click the "NEXT" button below to proceed.

CLICK NEXT TO CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE.

There are TWO more pages to complete.

This section requires the submission of peer reviewer information, including your bio and CV.

Please format all files as "Peer Reviewer Last Name_Peer Reviewer First Name_CV" (for example "Doe_Jax_CV_2026").

Several guidelines:

• Applications with missing documents will NOT be evaluated.

Please contact lesbianhealthfund@glma.org if you have any questions.

There is still ONE more page to complete. 

Overview:

Over the past 30 years, LHF has awarded more than $1 million to fund over 137 critical research studies which have deepened knowledge of our community's health. We see this funding is not just crucial to improve the health and lives of LGBT+ women and girls, but our grants serve as a crucial catalyst to larger, multi-million-dollar studies funded by federal agencies.

History:

LHF was founded in 1992, by a group of fiercely dedicated lesbian physicians who questioned how effective healthcare could be in improving the lives of their partners, chosen family members, patients, and themselves without high quality research. LHF became the solution to solving this problem.

Mission:

Improve the health and wellbeing of LGBTQ+ women & girls through funding rigorous scientific research

LHF has an expansive definition of LGBTQ+ women and girls and welcome proposals on LGBTQ+ subpopulations that experience similar systematic oppression and harm. 

This may be inclusive of but not limited to lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, and/or pansexual women partnered or having sex with women; nonbinary people partnered or having sex with women; as well as trans men or nonbinary people irrespective of partnership configuration or sexual behavior for topics such as sexual and reproductive health (cancers or preventative services of reproductive organs, perinatal health topics, et cetera).

Goals of LHF Grants:

Provide seed funding for pilot research and small grant activities that will lead to future funding (e.g., National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, other philanthropic and community-based granting agencies) by:

• Strengthening evidence for larger studies 
• Building preliminary data prior to full-scale proposals
• Establishing new knowledge where evidence gaps exist
• Establishing feasibility of objectives and methods 
• Testing innovative ideas on small scale
• Generating pilot data for subsequent training or early-stage investigator grants
• Support the development of investigators committed to LGBTQ+ women and girls’ health and wellbeing through funding 

The LHF Review Core Values:

• Fairness
• Highest Ethical Standards
• Transparency
• Impartiality
• Expert Assessment

• Reviewers represent interdisciplinary backgrounds in a variety of areas of scientific expertise

• Reviewers are accomplished in their areas of expertise and have established track record of funding for that expertise

• LHF strives to recruit a review panel that encompasses reviewers with a spectrum of diverse genders, ages, races/ethnicities, geographies, scientific perspectives, and training/credentials

Proposed reviewers may not be on the LHF review committee in a given cycle if the reviewer is named on a proposal as a PI/Co-PI.

Proposed reviewers may be on the LHF review committee, but may not review a proposal and will be asked to “leave the zoom room” for discussion of the proposal if: 

• The reviewer is from the same institution as the proposal’s PI/Co-PIs
• Within the past three years, the reviewer has been a collaborator (e.g., grant, study) or has had any other professional relationships (e.g., served as a mentor, advisory board member) with the PI/Co-PI’s on the proposal
• The proposal includes a letter of support from the reviewer
• The reviewer is unable to provide an unbiased review

Proposed reviewers may be on the review panel and review the proposal if:

• A proposal originates from an institution where the reviewer has collaborators, but the reviewer’s collaborators are not listed on the proposal
• The reviewer is a co-author of a non-research publication (e.g., review, commentary) or a mega-multi-authored publication with the proposal’s PI/Co-PIs

• Despite LHF’s conflicts of interest screening process, implicit and explicit biases may still influence how a grant is scored. This can include how a reviewer feels about a particular topic and its significance as an area of study, or knowing the “famous and brilliant” mentor of a student applicant. Reviewers should be mindful of how their biases, as well as assumptions or uncertainty about something in a grant proposal is influencing their review.
• If a concern or uncertainty arises regarding a grant proposal that relates to its eligibility to be funded by LHF (e.g., would LHF fund a study from an international NGO? Is this study new or an extension of an existing study? Does this well-known dataset actually include SOGI data now?), reviewers should reach out to LHF immediately to discuss this matter. The VP of LHF will try their best to find an answer to this concern or uncertainty prior to the review meeting.
• If a concern or speculation is brought up during the review meeting, then reviewers should score the grant proposal with best intent (e.g., the grant does meet LHF eligibility, a dataset does include the variables proposed). After the review meeting, the VP of LHF will confirm that best intent is met before granting any LHF funds. If best intent is not met, the grant will not be funded that cycle.