Contents:
Management
For the Collaborative Doctoral Award Scheme Only
Please comment on:
The arrangements for the management of the project and the partnership.
Appropriateness of procedures for recruitment and selection of student/s if they have named a student in the application is this justified? Is the named student suitable?
If a partnership agreement will be put in place and issues such as confidentiality, ethical considerations and intellectual property rights have or will be addressed.
Any arrangements that have been put in place for monitoring the progress of the project and the student by both the HEI and partner organisation.
All other Schemes
Please comment on:
The feasibility of the proposal.
The likelihood that the project will be completed within the proposal timetable .
The way in which the project will be managed, if appropriate: are the arrangements for managing the research team and supervising any research staff (research assistants; project students; other staff) appropriate? Is the proposed timetable realistic and are there appropriate milestones by which to measure the project’s progress?
Overall Management – please choose from the tick boxes provided to rate the proposed management of the project, using ‘Outstanding’, ‘Very Good’, ‘Good’, ‘Adequate’ or ‘Unsatisfactory'
Fellowships (standard and early career routes)
In addition to the above, please comment on:
The level of PREVIOUS support given by the host organisation for the development of the applicant’s research and academic career.
The level of support to be given by the host organisation DURING the Fellowship period, for the research and development activities they propose to undertake during the Fellowship. Also, the support to be provided by the institution for continued development.
The level of support to be given by the host organisation AFTER the end of the Fellowship period, for the applicant’s research and academic career.
The extent to which the proposed Fellowship would fit within relevant institutional/departmental research, career development and knowledge transfer strategies, as appropriate.
Fellowships - Route for Early
In addition to the above, please comment on:
The appropriateness of the mentoring arrangements and other development activities that have been put in place for the duration of the award.
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:
You may want to consider the appropriateness and methods of the knowledge exchange activities in facilitating the stated pathways to impact as port of the value for money of the project, including potential audience reach and sustainability of outcomes.
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.
Resources
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 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 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: http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/calls/.
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:
Investigator time and proposed involvement related to management of the research
Whether the proposal demonstrates value for money in terms of resources requested
Whether any animal use is fully justified in terms of need, spaces, number, conformance to guidelines
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: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/funding/peer-review/peer-review-at-the-mrc/
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:
Is the number of staff appropriate for the work described, and are the justifications for consumables and equipment clearly set out?
Is there sufficient justification for the resources requested?
Have the applicants allocated time and proposed involvement in the research adequately?
Is the use of animals justified in terms of need, species, number etc?
Does the proposal offer value for money?
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 https://www.ukri.org/funding/funding-opportunities/future-leaders-fellowships/
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 : https://www.ukri.org/funding/peer-review/