The purpose of the peer review of grant proposals within the College is to provide generic support for all investigators submitting applications. It is particularly relevant for new or inexperienced academics, those moving into new areas of research / investigation, or indeed, where recent success rates may have been limited. Peer-review remains flexible for proposals for small amounts of funding, such as travel or public outreach grants, or applications involving a large number of investigators/consortium where additional support may be beneficial.

Aims of Peer Review

  • To improve the quality of applications in order to help increase success rates.
  • To provide support regarding ‘best practice’ to all staff applying for external funding.
  • To enable staff to adopt a realistic and timely schedule in writing grant proposals.

Peer Review Protocol

  1. 6-8 weeks before the deadline: The applicants should consult with their Head of Department/Associate Dean Research (ADR)/Strategic Funding Manager (SFM), regarding their intention to submit.  The SFM and applicant discuss and agree 2-3 appropriate peer-reviewers.  For proposals >100k, it is desirable that applications be reviewed by at least two experts: one subject matter expert and one non-expert (ideally a funder specialist). On many panels a non-specialist may be speaking to grants outside of their main research area.
     
  2. 3-4 weeks before the deadline: The applicant emails the SFM with a draft, full application for circulation to peer reviewers. Feedback from peer reviewers would normally be expected within 2 weeks in order to allow time for further editing and improvement of the bid. For larger, strategic bids, more time will be required at this stage of the process.
     
  3. 1-2 weeks before the deadline: Final editing and sign-off of the final application and RPA form. The Executive Dean/ADR will require evidence of Peer Review having been conducted, and the applicant’s engagement with the SFM is an integral part of this process.

Guidelines for internal peer-reviewers

Peer review of grants should principally aim to identify possible major flaws in the application and suggest ways of improvement. Generic guidelines for peer reviewers are provided below; peer reviewers should also check funder guidelines for the relevant call:

  • Does the proposal have a clear fit with the funder’s priorities and with the specific call?
  • Is there a clear hypothesis/objective(s)?
  • What is the intellectual merit of the application?
  • Is the application nationally/internationally leading?
  • Does the proposal provide a possible major advance in knowledge/practical application?
  • To what extent does the application show creativity/innovation?
  • Is there adequate preliminary data/proof of concept?
  • How good is the applicant’s record of accomplishment (e.g., publication)?
  • Is there risk associated with the research? Is there a clear risk mitigation strategy?
  • Is the proposal under/or over resourced?
  • Are the collaborations appropriate and sufficient?