RESEARCH ACTIVE The Newsletter of University of Kent Research Services, Vol 5, Issue 3, May 2011 Image: kakisky
PEER REVIEW A University-wide system of internal peer review for large funding applications is currently being drafted, and it is hoped it will be introduced in the autumn. The move comes in response to the Research Council Delivery Plans, published in December last year. All the Councils stated their wish to ‘manage demand’. This means that they want to limit the number and increase the quality of applications they receive. The EPSRC has already done so by implementing its ‘blacklisting’ procedure (see p5). The BBSRC has talked about ‘triage’, the AHRC about ‘selfmanagement’, and the ESRC is currently consulting on different demand management options (see p4), which may penalise institutions that put in consistently low grade applications. It has stated that: ‘the Research Councils, where possible, will harmonise their demand management strategies. There is general agreement that HEIs should be encouraged to self regulate with a particular emphasis on structured peer review aimed at the submission of significantly fewer but better quality applications. This self regulation will be underpinned by the regular supply of performance data to institutions alongside better applicant guidance.’ Whilst the ‘push’ has come from the Research Councils for structured peer review, the University system
is intended to make a virtue of this necessity. It encourages applicants to discuss their proposals and get constructive feedback from those in the best position to help. Research Services are currently discussing the system with Heads of Schools, Directors of Research and others. Final proposals will be published in the Summer.
The Proposed System • will be mandatory for large applications (>£100k for
•
• • •
1
the Humanities, >£200k for Social Sciences, and >£300k for the Sciences), and voluntary for others; Applicants would complete an ‘intention to apply’ form outlining their project. On the form, two reviewers will be named: • Reviewer 1: has knowledge of the discipline; • Reviewer 2: has knowledge of the funder. These will be identified with help from the relevant DoR and Faculty Funding Officer. Applicants can discuss their applications with the Reviewers, and will show them the final version. Applicants do not have to accept feedback they receive, but will have to explain why they have not on the Internal Approval Form. The HoS, as now, will decide whether to approve the application.