Resources and Management



- AHRC specific

- EPSRC specific

- MRC specific

- NC3Rs specific

- URKI specific


AHRC - Specific Requirements:


For the Collaborative Doctoral Award Scheme Only

Please comment on:



All other Schemes

Please comment on:


Fellowships (standard and early career routes)

In addition to the above, please comment on:

Fellowships – Route for Early Career Researchers

In addition to the above, please comment on:


Value for Money


(Note – this section is not relevant to Collaborative Doctoral Awards reviews)


In light of your comments in relation to the quality and importance of the proposal, and the likely impact of the anticipated outputs, please comment on whether, in your view, the overall cost of the proposal represents value for money.


Please consider whether the resources requested, for example equipment, travel and subsistence or consumables, are reasonable in the context of the proposed research. If you have not already commented on the appropriateness of the level and balance of staff input to the project please also do so here.

Please note that, while we ask you to take into account the overall cost of the project, it is not necessary to scrutinise the amount requested as Estates or Indirect costs.

Please choose from the tick boxes provided to rate the overall value for money of the project, using ‘Outstanding’, ‘Very Good’, ‘Good’, ‘Adequate’ or ‘Unsatisfactory'

Follow-on Funding for Impact and Engagement Scheme:

In addition to the above:


Back to top

EPSRC - Specific Requirements:

Resources and Management

Management and Planning

You are asked to comment on the project plan and management arrangements in the proposal. These should be proportionate to the scale and complexity of the activity to be undertaken.


Applicants are required to identify on the application form all resources required to undertake the project, and to clearly explain the need for these in the justification of resources appended to the case for support. You should comment on how well this has been done and on the appropriateness of the resources requested. You should draw attention to anything in your view that has been requested but not justified or conversely needed but not identified. You should also comment on the suitability of arrangements for accessing resources other than through the grant, such as by collaboration with external groups. You should explicitly consider the amount of time being allocated to the project by the applicant(s) in this assessment. Your assessment should be based solely on the resources sought and not on the costs derived from them.

Animal Research and Human Participation

Where the applicants have ticked any boxes confirming that the proposal involves either animal research or human participation then you are asked to comment specifically on any ethical considerations and particularly on whether ethical approval procedures have been complied with. You should also comment on any potential adverse consequences for humans, animals or the environment and whether these risks have been addressed satisfactorily in the proposal. It is particularly important that resources relating to these aspects are explicitly justified in terms of need, scale and nature of resource, so for example for animal research you should comment specifically on the need to use animals, the choice of species, the number of animals it is intended to use.

Scheme Specific Guidance:

EPSRC reviewer guidance and the specific assessment criteria for each scheme is available on the EPSRC website at


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 application 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:


Back to top

MRC – Specific Requirements


Please comment using the text box* on whether funds requested are essential and justified by the importance and scientific potential of the research, including:



When you have completed your comments, select the “Save” option from the top of the screen.




Please remember to ‘Save’ text regularly to avoid loss of data.


 *The  text box must be completed using:

No more than 4000 characters, including spaces, tabs and returns .

Only the standard Je-S character set should be used.


For further information regarding Peer Review at the MRC (and access to the MRC Reviewers Handbook), please see the MRC website:


NC3Rs - Specific Requirements:

Resources and Management


Justification for Resources


The NC3Rs abides by the UKRI policy regarding costs and uses the full economic costing (FEC) model for funding project and pilot study grants and strategic awards. Reviewers are therefore not required to comment on the directly allocated or indirect costs of the application.


However reviewers should provide their views on direct costs of the proposal and the allocation of resources.


Points to consider include:


Back to top

URKI - Specific Requirements

Future Leaders Fellowships


Resources Requested


Comment on:

     Whether funds requested for the first four years are appropriate and fully justified to deliver the proposed project

     Whether the proposal demonstrates value for money in terms of resources requested

     Whether any animal use is fully justified in terms of need, species, number and conformance to guidelines

     Whether the project plan and management arrangements are proportionate to the scale and complexity of the activity to be undertaken


UKRI reviewer guidance and the specific assessment criteria for each scheme is available to view on the UKRI website

Reviewers are also encouraged to read the Peer Review Framework, which describes how peer review is used in assessing proposals and making funding decisions.  The Peer Review Framework document is available here :