College of Business and Social Science Peer Review Process

Principles

Peer Review will involve active researchers helping to review applications from BSS staff in a supportive manner. This should be organised at a Departmental level, with reviewers being drawn from across the College (or the University) to include individuals who are well- placed to provide a constructive review. For bids including academic partners from other institutions, this process may include reviewers from the partner institution or the review may be conducted entirely externally.

It is likely that staff who have experience in research funding applications, award holders (past and present) and/or are external peer reviewers are best placed to provide help and guidance. The Departmental Research Directors will be the first point of contact and lead the peer review process (though the Head of Departments may nominate another person to lead the Peer Review process).

The table below shows recommendations on the number of reviews that might by prudent. The higher the grant value the more useful it is to have greater scrutiny.

Please note: Applications over £1m in value will need sign off from the PVC and Executive Dean.

Getting the best out of peer review

Whilst peer review is an essential step to undertake before submitting an application, for colleagues less experienced with funding applications, early engagement with the process is highly recommended, in order that they are able to engage fully with feedback. Those with significant experience in funding applications can choose to use peer review to fine-tune their applications before submission. Note that for those application that is led by another University (i.e., the Aston staff is the Co-I), the peer review will focus on the specific aspects of the project that are being undertaken by Aston's colleague(s).
 
Finding reviewers as early as possible is recommended, even if the review is to happen later. This allows the reviewer to schedule appropriate time to undertake the review. Please work in partnership with your Departmental Research Director and/or Head of Department to plan
a) what you will apply for and b) when to schedule peer review, mentorship, or other forms of assistance.
Research Directors will be asked to keep an up-to-date record of review processes taking place in their department. Additional resources are available here that will help you tailor your application to differing funding schemes.

Expectations for peer review:

1. Applicants need to let Research and Knowledge Exchange (RKE) know as soon as possible that they intend to apply for a particular scheme (we will ask for details of the application using the MS Form: https://forms.office.com/e/XfjXDerXVd applicants can suggest peer-reviewers at this stage.
    
2. At the same time, applicants need to inform the Research Director within their Department of their intention to apply. They also need to discuss the feasibility of any potential teaching buyout associated with the grant with their Head of Department.
    
3. The Research Director is responsible for selecting the peer reviewers for the application. They can consider the nominated reviewers by the applicant or select others – the minimum numbers are specified in the table above.
    
4. No later than 4 weeks before the scheme deadline/submission: Applicants must send a draft of their application to RKE for initial checks on eligibility and fit to the scheme. The budget needs to be discussed with RKE and Finance.
    
5. No later than 3 weeks before the scheme deadline/submission: Provided that the applicant is eligible, and their application is suitable for the scheme, the applicant sends their draft application to their Departmental Research Director, who will then arrange for the application to be sent to peer-reviewers (please cc RKE colleagues Ronni Littlewood and Suzie Hayman.
    
6. Peer reviewers are advised to base their constructive criticism on the criteria below. A peer review feedback form is available for this purpose. Reviewers should however refer to any additional specific scheme criteria (RKE may be able to advise on specific scheme criteria). To ensure applicants have the opportunity for timely proposal revisions, we request that reviewers finalise and share their evaluation within 5 days of agreeing to act as a reviewer.
    
7. 2 weeks before the scheme deadline/submission: Completed evaluations to be sent to the applicant (cc Departmental Research Directors, the School’s Associate Dean Research and RKE)
    
8. No later than 1 week before deadline/submission: Revised application and final budget to be sent to RKE/ADRs to commence final internal approvals. Please note that RKE/ADRs will request evidence of peer review and revisions, and applications with insufficient quality will be returned to the applicant for revision and submission to future calls.

The timelines indicated above are the latest dates by which these steps need to have been completed. Larger and more complex applications, particularly those involving multiple international partners, will require longer timescales for development and completion. For some popular schemes which attract higher numbers of applicants, a schedule may be put in place by RKE to allow sufficient time for final approvals prior to submission. Please consult colleagues in RKE if you are applying for a call with a fixed deadline.

Academic Peer-Review evaluation criteria:

Academic Quality and Feasibility

• Originality, significance, rigour, and potential impact of the proposed research
• Quality and feasibility of the proposed methodology, including any novel or innovative methods
• Feasibility of the project considering the timeline and budget

Applicant/Project Team

• Strength, appropriateness and track record of the project team, including collaborators, project partners, mentor (where appropriate)
• Appropriateness of application to applicant’s career stage and development

Quality and feasibility of dissemination/impact/engagement plans (essential for applications with a value of over £500k)

• Is there sufficient detail about the beneficiaries of the project? How can this be strengthened?
• How clear are the plans for generating engagement and impact?
• How appropriate are the plans for dissemination (e.g. publications, conferences) and how can these be strengthened?

Other comments e.g.

• Clarity and Accessibility of the writing
• Justification of Resources
   

Flowchart of the grant submission/peer review process