Standard Review (AHRC only)

Click here to see this page in full context

Overall Conclusions

Please give your overall conclusions on this proposal, highlighting strengths and weaknesses. You may also make any additional comments that have not previously been made elsewhere. For example, you may wish to comment on any ethical aspects of the proposal that give rise to concern.

It would also be helpful if you could provide a brief justification of the grade that you have given above. Please do not disclose the grade you have given, as this is not normally disclosed to the applicant (although, if you are a Peer Review College or External reviewer, your comments will be).

Overall Grade

Please refer to one of the 4 scales below when assigning an overall grade to the proposal:

For Research Grants, Large Grants, Development Grants and Research Networking schemes please refer to this scale -

Grade	Definition
6	An outstanding proposal that is world-leading in all of the following: scholarship; originality; quality; and significance. It fully meets all the assessment criteria for the scheme and excels in many or all of these. It provides full and consistent evidence and justification for the proposal and management arrangements are clear and convincing. It should be funded as a matter of the very highest priority.
5	A proposal that is internationally excellent in all of the following: scholarship, originality; quality; and significance. It fully meets or surpasses all the assessment criteria for the scheme. It provides full and consistent evidence and justification for the proposal and management arrangements are clear and convincing. It should be funded as a matter of priority, but does not merit the very highest priority rating.
4	A very good proposal demonstrating high international standards of scholarship, originality, quality and significance. It meets all the assessment criteria for the scheme. It provides good evidence and justification for the proposal and management arrangements are clear and sound. It is worthy of consideration for funding.
3	A satisfactory proposal in terms of the overall standard of scholarship and quality but which is not internationally competitive and/or which is more limited in terms of originality/innovation, significance and/or its contribution to the research field. It satisfies at least minimum requirements in relation to the assessment criteria for the scheme, provides reasonable evidence and justification for the proposal and management arrangements are adequate overall. In a competitive context, the proposal is not considered of sufficient priority to recommend for funding.
2	A proposal of inconsistent quality which has some strengths, innovative ideas and/or good components or dimensions, but also has significant weaknesses or flaws in one or more of the following: conceptualisation; design; methodology; and/or management. As a result of the flaws or weaknesses identified the proposal is not considered to be of fundable quality. A proposal should also be graded 2 if it does not meet all the assessment criteria for the scheme. It is not recommended for funding.
1	A proposal which falls into one or more of the following categories: has unsatisfactory levels of originality, quality and/or significance falls significantly short of meeting the assessment criteria for the scheme contains insufficient evidence and justification for the proposal displays limited potential to advance the research field the potential outcomes or outputs do not merit the levels of funding sought is unconvincing in terms of its management arrangements or capacity to deliver the proposed activities. It is not suitable for funding.

For Leadership Fellowships and other fellowships schemes please refer to this scale -

Grade	Definition
6	An outstanding proposal that is world-leading in all of the following: scholarship; originality; quality; and significance. It fully meets all the assessment criteria for the scheme and excels in many or all of these. A convincing case is made that the proposed Fellowship has outstanding leadership and transformational potential, commensurate with the applicant’s career stage. It provides full and consistent evidence and justification for the proposal, demonstrates very strong institutional support, and management arrangements are clear and convincing. It should be funded as a matter of the very highest priority.
5	A proposal that is internationally excellent in all of the following: scholarship, originality quality and significance. It fully meets or surpasses all the assessment criteria for the scheme. A convincing case is made that the proposed Fellowship has excellent leadership and transformational potential, commensurate with the applicant’s career stage It provides full and consistent evidence and justification for the proposal, demonstrates strong institutional support, and management arrangements are clear and convincing. It should be funded as a matter of priority, but does not merit the very highest priority rating.
4	A very good proposal demonstrating high international standards of scholarship, originality, quality and significance. It meets all the assessment criteria for the scheme. A convincing case is made that the proposed Fellowship has leadership and transformational potential, commensurate with the applicant’s career stage. It provides good evidence and justification for the proposal, demonstrates good institutional support, and management arrangements are clear and sound. It is worthy of consideration for funding.
3	A satisfactory proposal in terms of the overall standard of scholarship and quality but which is not internationally competitive and/or does not make a fully convincing case that the proposed Fellowship has significant leadership and/or transformational potential, commensurate with the applicant’s career stage, , and/or which is more limited in terms of originality/innovation, significance and/or its contribution to the research field. It satisfies at least minimum requirements in relation to the assessment criteria for the scheme, provides reasonable evidence and justification for the proposal, demonstrates institutional support and management arrangements are adequate overall. In a competitive context, the proposal is not considered of sufficient priority to recommend for funding.
2	A proposal of inconsistent quality which has some strengths, innovative ideas and/or good components or dimensions, but also has significant weaknesses or flaws in one or more of the following: conceptualisation; design; methodology; management; leadership and transformational potential; collaborative activities; and/or institutional support. As a result of the flaws or weaknesses identified the proposal is not considered to be of fundable quality. A proposal should also be graded 2 if it does not meet all the assessment criteria for the scheme. It is not recommended for funding.
1	A proposal which falls into one or more of the following categories: has unsatisfactory levels of originality, quality and/or significance falls significantly short of meeting the assessment criteria for the scheme contains insufficient evidence and justification for the proposal displays limited potential to advance the research field the potential outcomes or outputs do not merit the levels of funding sought is unconvincing in terms of its management arrangements or capacity to deliver the proposed activities. displays inadequate institutional support does not make a convincing case that the proposed Fellowship has leadership and transformational potential commensurate with the applicant’s career stage contains insufficient proposals for relevant collaborative activities It is not suitable for funding.

For Follow-on Funding schemes please refer to this scale -

Grade	Definition
6	An outstanding and innovative proposal meeting the highest quality and standards of knowledge exchange, active dissemination and /or public engagement which targets new audiences and is likely to lead to significant impact. It fully meets all the assessment criteria for the scheme and provides full and consistent evidence and justification for the proposal in terms of concept, design, methodology and management. It should be funded as a matter of the very highest priority.
5	An excellent and innovative proposal meeting the highest quality and standards of knowledge/exchange, active dissemination and /or public engagement which targets new audiences and is likely to lead to significant impact. It fully meets all the assessment criteria for the scheme and provides full and consistent evidence and justification for the proposal in terms of concept, design, methodology and management. It should be funded as a matter of priority, but does not merit the very highest priority rating.
4	A good proposal meeting a high quality and standard of knowledge /exchange, active dissemination and /or public engagement and is likely to lead to impact. It meets all the assessment criteria for the scheme, and provides good evidence and justification for the proposal in terms of concept, design, methodology and management. It is suitable for funding.
3	A satisfactory proposal in terms of the overall quality and standard of knowledge exchange, active dissemination and /or public engagement which targets new audiences and likely to lead to some impact. It meets the assessment criteria for the scheme and provides reasonable evidence and justification for the proposal in terms of concept, design, methodology and management but which in a competitive context is not a priority. It is not recommended for funding.
2	A proposal of an inconsistent quality and standard of knowledge exchange, active dissemination and /or public engagement which is unlikely to lead to any significant impact, which has some strengths, but also contains a number of major weaknesses or flaws in its conceptualisation, design, methodology and/or management. It does not meet all the assessment criteria for the scheme. It is not suitable for funding.
1	A proposal of an unsatisfactory quality and standard of knowledge exchange, active dissemination and /or public engagement which will not lead to significant impact, which does not meet the assessment criteria for the scheme and does not provide satisfactory evidence and justification for the proposal. It is not suitable for funding.

For the Collaborative Doctoral Awards (CDA) scheme please refer to this scale -

Grade	Definition
6	An outstanding proposal meeting the highest quality and standards of research collaboration and likely to provide significant mutual benefits and outputs. It fully meets all the assessment criteria for the scheme and provides full and consistent evidence and justification for the proposal in terms of concept, design, methodology and management. It should be funded as a matter of the very highest priority.
5	An excellent proposal meeting the highest quality and standards of research collaboration and likely to provide significant mutual benefits and outputs. It fully meets all the assessment criteria for the scheme and provides full and consistent evidence and justification for the proposal in terms of concept, design, methodology and management. It should be funded as a matter of priority, but does not merit the very highest priority rating.
4	A good proposal meeting a high quality and standard of research collaboration and likely to provide some significant mutual benefits and outputs. It meets all the assessment criteria for the scheme, and provides good evidence and justification for the proposal in terms of concept, design, methodology and management. It is suitable for funding.
3	A satisfactory proposal in terms of the overall quality and standard of research collaboration, mutual benefits and outcomes which meets the assessment criteria for the scheme and provides reasonable evidence and justification for the proposal in terms of concept, design, methodology and management but which in a competitive context is not a priority. It is not recommended for funding.
2	A proposal of an inconsistent quality and standard of research collaboration, mutual benefits and outcomes which has some strengths, but also contains a number of major weaknesses or flaws in its conceptualisation, design, methodology and/or management. It does not meet all the assessment criteria for the scheme. It is not suitable for funding.
1	A proposal of an unsatisfactory quality and standard of research collaboration, mutual benefits and outcomes which does not meet the assessment criteria for the scheme and does not provide satisfactory evidence and justification for the proposal. It is not suitable for funding.