Proposal Assessment

 

If this proposal has been submitted to a specific scheme then the research council will provide additional information in the Instructions to Reviewer section

Contents:

- EPSRC specific

- ESRC specific

- MRC specific

- NC3Rs specific

- STFC specific

EPSRC - Specific Requirements:

Scheme Specific Guidance:

 

This proposal has been submitted against a specific scheme/call, which will have explicit aims and objectives and which will have set out additional assessment criteria relating to meeting these. You should ensure you have read the scheme guidance and/or call document and should comment here on how well the proposal meets the aims of the call and the extent to which it addresses all the specific criteria.

 

EPSRC reviewer guidance and the specific assessment criteria for each scheme is available on the EPSRC website at https://www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/assessmentprocess/review/.

 

If the proposal has been submitted in response to a published call, you are asked to read that call document and to make your assessment of the proposal within the context of the aims, objectives and specific assessment criteria for that call. The call document can be found on the EPSRC Website following this link: http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/calls/.

 

Back to top

ESRC - Specific Requirements

ESRC Academic Assessment guidance

 

Reviewer scoring scale

 

ESRC uses a numerical reviewer’s scoring scale from 1 to 6. This scale is used for all ESRC schemes where proposals are sent to external peer reviewers and then to a panel meeting for a final funding recommendation; this includes Research Grant proposals. Please note that proposals to fast-track calls are assessed using the Panel Introducer scoring scale, from 1-10.

 

Please also be aware that for Research Grant proposals we allow an applicant (PI) response to reviewers’ comments.

 

For your overall score, please use the following:

 

Score

Description*

6 (Outstanding)

The proposal is outstanding in terms of its potential scientific merit.

5 (Excellent)

The proposal is excellent in terms of its potential scientific merit.

4 (Good)

 

The proposal is important as it has considerable potential merit. 

3 (Satisfactory)

The proposal has significant potential scientific merit but is not of a consistently high quality. 

2 (Fair/Some weaknesses)

The proposal will add to understanding and is worthy of support, but is of lesser quality or urgency than more highly rated proposals. Such proposals are unlikely to have a significant influence on the development of the research area.

1 (Poor)

The proposal is flawed in its scientific approach, or is repetitious of other work, or otherwise judged not worth pursuing; or which, though possibly having sound objectives, appears seriously defective in its methodology.

 

*These descriptions refer solely to scientific quality for simplicity. However, your score should take into account all the assessment criteria for the specific scheme, as detailed below.

If you feel unable to assess a proposal against a particular criterion, you can also indicate this by ticking ‘Unable to assess’ against that criterion on the reviewer form (effectively score 0).

 

Detailed notes on Academic Reviewer Guidance covering Assessment Criteria can be located here: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding/guidance-for-peer-reviewers/

 

 

ESRC User Assessment Guidance

 

Reviewer scoring scales

 

ESRC uses a numerical reviewer’s scoring scale from 1 to 6. This scale is now used for all ESRC schemes where proposals are sent to external peer reviewers and then to a panel meeting for a final funding recommendation; this includes Research Grant proposals. Please note that proposals to fast-track calls are assessed using the Panel Introducer scoring scale, from 1-10.

 

Please also be aware that for Research Grant proposals we allow an applicant (PI) response to reviewers’ comments.

 

For your overall score, please use the following:

 

Score

Definition

High (equivalent to score 6)

Research of high importance to users of research, i.e., of such novelty or timeliness and promise that a significant contribution to policy or practice is likely.

Worthy (equivalent to score 4)

Research that will add to understanding and is worthy of support but which may not be of such relevance or urgency as to have a significant influence on policy or practice.

Reject (equivalent to score 2)

Research which is flawed in its proposed contribution to policy or practice or is repetitious of other work.

 

Detailed comments in support of these scores should be provided in the free text overall assessment section. 

 

If you wish to comment on scientific quality, please use the above ‘Academic’ scoring table guide.

 

Detailed notes on User Reviewer Guidance covering Assessment Criteria can be located here: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding/guidance-for-peer-reviewers/

 

Back to top

 

MRC – Specific Requirements

Proposal Assessment (criteria)

Reviews are based around three core criteria:

We also ask reviewers to consider other aspects of the research, such as the potential impact, ethical issues, data management plans, appropriate use of animals, the research environment and more. Detailed criteria for the different schemes we operate can be found in the Reviewers Handbook, along with a series of questions that you should consider when preparing your review.

For further guidance for peer reviewers please see the MRC website by selecting:  http://www.mrc.ac.uk/funding/peer-review/guidance-for-peer-reviewers/

Back to top

 

NC3Rs - Specific Requirements:

ALL comments in this section will be sent, unedited, to the applicant. Your identity will not be revealed. 

 

Scientific Potential

Please consider the following:

 

What are the prospects for good scientific progress?

 

Research Plans

Please comment on:

- Has information been provided on care, husbandry and refinements to procedures?

- Has the number of animals been minimised?

 

Ethics and Research Governance of the proposal

In completing this section please consider the following:

 

Risks of research misuse

Please consider if there are any ethical, safety or security issues, or other potential adverse consequences, associated with the proposed research.

 

Relevance to NC3Rs Strategy

Practical advances in applying the 3Rs to animal research are important in order to ensure high-quality, reproducible and humane science; and to address public concerns regarding the use of animals. One of the key aims of the NC3Rs is to promote the development of new research approaches, which have a reduced reliance on the use of animals and/or lead to improved animal welfare. The Centre does this partly through funding high quality research which advances knowledge in each of the 3Rs.

 

Please comment on the relevance of the proposal to the NC3Rs strategy.

 

Back to top

STFC - Specific Requirements:

For calls against the STFC Standard and Project Peer Review Panel scheme please answer the questions on Strengths, Weaknesses, and Resources. The Impact section is only relevant to PPRP and, ranking to the Astronomy Grants Panel.

Further guidance is available below and STFC assessment criteria can be found on the documents to review helptext page

For Astronomy Grants Panel proposals it is highly likely that you will be asked to comment on several projects within the proposal. It is essential that the reviewer clearly identifies each project separately when providing comments.

For strengths and weaknesses please include your thoughts on the proposal with emphasis on:

Please also provide your thoughts on:

For Resources comment on the justification for the level of resources requested and their appropriateness to deliver the stated aims. Please state whether the resources requested have been justified and are appropriate (including facility requests such as computing etc. Or what modifications you would recommend). Please pay particular attention to staffing and equipment.  

                                                            

For the questions on Impact and Ranking, please see the on screen guidance within the form.

 

IPS/Follow on Fund and CLASP proposals should be assessed making sure there is evidence of knowledge exchange that will stimulate technology exploitation through the identified route to market. There are three main criteria, Economic Impact, Social Impact and Overall quality which are defined below:

Economic Impact:

Social Impact:

Overall Quality:

Back to top