Assessment process
Assessment process - for calls with closing dates from 1 October 2013
Common principles of assessment apply to all research funding, whether it is supported through research programmes (RP) or responsive mode (RM). All proposals are assessed by peer review, but processes may vary to suit the needs of the scheme.
For responsive mode proposals, the only assessment criterion is excellence. In research programmes additional criteria such as fit to NERC priorities also apply. An explanation of how the NERC assessment criteria will be applied can be found in each scheme's guidance.
Process
The peer review process generally consists of two stages. For small investments or outline proposals assessment is likely to be by a panel only.
1. Expert Review: Internationally-recognised experts considered to have expertise relevant to the proposal are invited by NERC to undertake proposal reviews. For responsive mode proposals the majority of experts approached are members of the NERC Peer Review College. Applicants have the opportunity to nominate reviewers, and where possible some of these are also approached to comment. Proposers are given an opportunity to respond to comments provided by reviewers.
NERC has set minimum and optimal levels of peer review as acceptable for particular research funding schemes, the number of reviews used in decision-making should only fall above or below these levels in exceptional circumstances.
| Proposal type | Minimum number of reviews per proposal | Optimal number of reviews per proposal |
|---|---|---|
| Standard Grant Standard New Investigator Grant | 3 | 4 |
| Large Grant | 4 | 6 |
| Urgency Grant | 2 | 3 |
| Independent Research Fellowship | 3 | 4 |
| Research Programme | Defined by call according to proposal complexity | Defined by call according to proposal complexity |
2. Moderating Panel: Responsive mode moderating panels are formed from the Peer Review College. Half of the membership of any panel regularly attend as 'Core Panel Members' and there is an identified Chair. Other members are selected from the College according to the particular proposals being considered. For schemes where multiple panels meet (ie Standard Grants and Fellowships), business is divided between Panel Portfolios that consider particular aspects of environmental science.
Research programme moderating panels are formed from UK and international academic experts and users of the research programme outputs, this will include some members of the Peer Review College.
The moderating panel considers the proposal, the reviewer comments and the proposer's responses to those comments. Panel members may introduce information to the discussion that has not previously been raised by the reviewers, only if they identify a serious issue. With reference to this information the moderating panel is responsible for:
- In the case of Standard Grants, providing pre-scores for excellence to allow the business of the panel to be managed.
- Providing a final grading and feedback comments on the proposal in a form that will be made available to the proposer and the submitting research organisation.
- Prioritisation of proposals and providing funding recommendations.
- Examining the resources requested for fundable proposals to ensure they are justified and recommending any budget adjustments necessary.
- Identifying adventurous proposals and suitable break-points in high-risk grants to allow risk assessment.
The membership and outcomes of moderating panels are published on the NERC website.
Sandpits: Where NERC needs to encourage multidisciplinary research in an area where novel and truly adventurous research is required or for new directions in thinking where new collaborations need to be facilitated, a sandpit may be held. A sandpit is an intensive and interactive event where participants get together for 3-5 days. The event culminates in the presentation of proposals, with a funding decision being made using the process of real time peer review.
Assessment process - for calls with closing dates before 1 October 2013
Background
Common principles of assessment apply to all research funding, whether it is supported through National Capability (NC), Research Programmes (RP) or Responsive Mode (RM). The exact process may vary to suit the needs of the scheme.
A key feature of the pre-award assessment process is the funding category specific assessment of proposals. For example, for RM proposals, "Fit to NERC priorities" is not a key criterion, but it will be for RP. Similarly in the case of larger programmes, it is accepted and desirable that proposals may cross funding categories, eg a major directed research programme may contain a long-term monitoring project. In these situations, proposers are encouraged to make this explicit in the proposal, such that reviewers and Moderating Panels can be asked to assess and grade the proposal using the appropriate criteria for each element.
Overall Process
The standard framework for the pre-award assessment process consists of up to three stages, although not all stages will be used for all funding opportunities:
1. Initial Review: This will be used primarily for RM standard research grant proposals. Members of the Peer Review College will be selected by Swindon Office staff to conduct the Initial Review that seeks to eliminate weaker proposals, thereby allowing subsequent review to be focussed on those most likely to be funded. The assessment criteria will be used to guide the college members' assessments and grading at the Initial Review. Assessment and comments from the Initial Review will be passed to NERC for shortlisting the proposals to go forward to External Review. Proposals that are rejected at this stage will receive feedback as soon as possible after decisions have been made. All comments and grades for proposals that are successful at this stage will be sent to the Moderating Panel.
2. External Review: External peer reviewers will be asked to assess and grade the proposal according to the pre-award assessment criteria. Proposers will be given an opportunity to respond to comments provided by external reviewers (and by college members if the initial review stage is used). All comments and gradings arising from external peer review will be sent to the Moderating Panel.
3. Moderating Panel: The membership/composition of the Moderating Panel may take a number of forms depending on the funding category and type of proposal. For example, a Moderating Panel for responsive research proposals will be constituted from the Peer Review College. For Research Programme proposals, the Moderating Panel will be composed of the Chair and members of the Programme Advisory Body (if there is a standing advisory group), identified senior users of the research programme, and members of the Peer Review College.
The Moderating Panel will receive the full proposal, any additional background information, reviewer comments and, where available, the proposer's responses to reviewers' assessments.
With reference to this information the Moderating Panel is responsible for:
- Providing a final grading and comments on the proposal in a form that will be made available to the proposer.
- Providing recommendations for funding and where there are competing proposals, make recommendations on priorities in the context of the funding available.
- In the case of Research Programmes (including those delivered by NERC's Research and Collaborative Centres), recommending to the Programme Executive Board (PEB) on the overall funding envelope.
- Satisfying themselves that the financial resources requested for funded proposals are reasonable to meet the project objectives and recommend any areas of budget adjustment necessary.
- Identify suitable break-points in the funding programme to allow risk assessment for high risk rated proposals.
Guidance on the use of the pre-award assessment criteria for reviewers and moderating panel members can be found in each scheme's specific guidance notes.
Applicants can ask for detailed feedback as soon as decisions have been made.
Sandpits: Where NERC needs to encourage multidisciplinary research in an area where novel and truly adventurous research is required or for new directions in thinking where new collaborations need to be facilitated, a sandpit may be held. A sandpit is an intensive and interactive event where participants get together for 3-5 days. The event culminates in the presentation of proposals, with a funding decision being made using the process of real time peer review.