Assessment process
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.