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 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/.
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/
Proposal Assessment (criteria)
Reviews are based around three core criteria:
Importance: how important are the questions, or gaps in knowledge, that are being addressed?
Scientific potential: what are the prospects for good scientific progress?
Resources requested: are the funds requested essential for the work, and do the importance and scientific potential justify funding on the scale requested?
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/
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?
Has the host Research Organisation demonstrated a commitment to supporting the work?
Is there a firm foundation to take the work forward?
Are collaborators well chosen?
Research Plans
Please comment on:
How innovative is the proposal? To your knowledge, is the same or similar work being undertaken elsewhere?
Are the experimental plans realistic and feasible, given the aims of the research and the resources?
Are the methods and study designs appropriate? Are sufficient details given?
If appropriate, is there suitable preliminary data included? Note: this may be limited for the pilot study grant scheme.
What are the scientific, technical or organisational challenges and have the applicants identified plans to tackle them?
In the case of applications for Pilot Study grants how will the work be developed and how feasible are the subsequent proposals?
Is information provided on what will be the next steps for evaluation, validation and implementation?
With regard to animal work
- 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:
Is the work ethically acceptable?
Are there any ethical issues that need separate consideration?
Are the ethical review and research governance arrangements clear and acceptable?
Where applicable, have replacement, refinement and reduction been applied to the proposed work?
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.
Are there any tangible risks that the research would generate outcomes that could be misused for harmful purposes?
Are there any actions which could lead to harm to humans, animals or the environment - including terrorist misuse?
If such issues exist, have these been addressed satisfactorily in the proposal?
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.
Is the relevance to the NC3Rs priorities clearly and convincingly explained?
Have the applicants provided a clear assessment of the predicted advances in the 3Rs?
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
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, 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:
*UKRI recognises that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused major interruptions and disruptions across our communities and are committed to ensuring that individual applicants and their wider team, including partners and networks, are not penalised for any disruption to their career(s) such as breaks and delays, disruptive working patterns and conditions, the loss of on-going work, and role changes that may have been caused by the pandemic.
When undertaking your assessment of the research project, you should consider the unequal impacts of the impact that COVID-19 related disruption might have had on the track record and career development of those individuals included in the proposal, and you should focus on the capability of the applicant and their wider team to deliver the research they are proposing.
**UKRI acknowledges that it is a challenge for applicants to determine the future impacts of COVID-19 while the pandemic continues to evolve. Applicants have been advised that their applications should be based on the information available at the point of submission and, if applicable, the known application specific impacts of COVID-19 should be accounted for. Where known impacts have occurred, these should have been highlighted in the application, including the assumptions/information at the point of submission. Applicants were not required to include contingency plans for the potential impacts of COVID-19. Requests for travel both domestically and internationally could be included in accordance to the relevant scheme guidelines, noting the above advice.
When undertaking your assessment of the research project you should assess the project as written, noting that any changes that the project might require in the future, which arise from the COVID-19 pandemic, will be resolved as a post-award issue by UKRI if the project is successful. Potential complications related to COVID-19 should not affect your assessment or the score you give the project