Nominated Reviewers

Provide details of reviewers whom the Council may approach for review of the research proposal.

Nominated reviewers should be experts in the research field and/or be able to provide an expert view on the value and benefits to users of the research proposal. International reviewers may be included, but applicants should avoid nominating more than one reviewer from the same organisation.

Full contact details must be given for each reviewer, including at least one of telephone or e-mail (the Councils prefer to correspond by e-mail whenever possible).

Note: If the person you require is not in the searchable list, use the Add New Person button - found at the bottom of the search window.

- THE FOLLOWING IS COUNCIL SPECIFIC GUIDANCE -

EPSRC - Specific Requirements

For most schemes, details of three reviewers must be given. Fellows should note that delays in processing their proposal may occur if nominated reviewers are unavailable or do not have the appropriate expertise for the proposal in question.

Fellows should avoid nominating more than one reviewer from the same organisation.

ESRC - Specific Requirements

Nominated reviewers are not required for Postdoctoral Fellowship applications.

You should seek each person's permission before nominating them as a reviewer.

Academic Reviewers

You may give the names and addresses (including email addresses) of two academics who could provide expert reviewer comment on your Fellowship proposal. One of these will normally be selected as a reviewer. Applicants at the beginning of their research careers may nominate a reviewer from their own institution. Nominated reviewers should be at institutions other than the one where you are currently located, or the one which may host the Fellowship (to avoid any conflict of interest).

User Reviewers

In addition, please provide the names and addresses (including email addresses if possible) of up to two potential users of the research who can comment on the utility of the research outcomes. For research where it is difficult to identify value to users outside the research community, these nominations may be left blank. User (eg non academic) reviewers must not be located within the submitting organisation (to avoid any conflict of interest).

Proposals will not be disadvantaged by the absence of nominated reviewers.

MRC - Specific Requirements

Applicants can nominate up to 3 independent reviewers whom MRC may approach for assessment of the research proposal.

Please note only one of the three nominated reviewers will be approached and we may decide not to approach any of the applicant’s nominated reviewers.

 

Please note the MRC considers possible conflicts of interest when selecting experts to review a proposal. Reviewers are asked to identify any possible conflicts of interest before they begin reviewing a proposal and to decline to review a proposal if there are any. The MRC treat any such disclosures appropriately and fairly. The covering letter can be used to name conflicted experts that you request not to be used as reviewers.

NC3Rs - Specific Requirements

Applicants have the option to suggest up to three potential, national and international, reviewers for their application. Please note, however, that choices will be scrutinised by the Office for any conflicts of interest (including joint publications within the past 5 years), and it is not guaranteed that suggested reviewers will be approached.

 

NERC - Specific Requirements

Three reviewers must be nominated, and they should not be from the same organisation as the applicant or the host organisation. An optional fourth reviewer may also be nominated.

RAEng - Specific Requirements

Three reviewers must be nominated, and they should not be from the same organisation as the applicant or the host organisation.

STFC - Specific Requirements

Applicants for Ernest Rutherford may supply one nominated reviewer who must not be from the host institution.

The nominated review should be attached to the proposal as a ‘letter of support’. It is mandatory at the submitter stage to upload this attachment which will be confidential i.e. not visible to the applicant. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that their nominated reviewer knows who to supply their reference to (at the host institution) in order that it can be uploaded and submitted with the proposal.

The review should be a maximum of two sides of A4 and should highlight the applicant's research career and suitability for a fellowship. An international reviewer may be used.

 

Reviews should be submitted along with the application by the closing date.

 

Applicants for IPS Fellowships are not required to provide reviewers.

Applicants for Public Engagement Fellowships will be asked to nominate two reviewers. STFC will contact these reviewers as required - please do not submit reviews with your application.

NB Reviewer is now the agreed cross-council terminology for a referee.

 

 

UKRI - Specific Requirements

Applicants can nominate up to 3 independent reviewers whom MRC may approach for assessment of the research proposal.

Please note only one of the three nominated reviewers will be approached and we may decide not to approach any of the applicant’s nominated reviewers.

Please note the MRC considers possible conflicts of interest when selecting experts to review a proposal. Reviewers are asked to identify any possible conflicts of interest before they begin reviewing a proposal and to decline to review a proposal if there are any. The MRC treat any such disclosures appropriately and fairly. The covering letter can be used to name conflicted experts that you request not to be used as reviewers.