Peer Review College
Terms and conditions
The following terms and conditions apply to NERC Peer Review College Members, effective from July 2012.
- Peer Review membership is open-ended and will be reviewed annually by NERC. Withdrawal of membership is at NERC's discretion and is based on annual reviews of College member performance and the scientific areas where NERC is receiving applications. Members may of course withdraw their membership at any time. The College year runs from 1 July to 30 June.
- All members must abide by NERC's policy on vested interests.
- All members must abide by the Research Councils' Reviewer Protocols.
- All members are required to complete induction for new members within their first year of Peer Review College membership (in the format requested by NERC, this may vary but is likely to involve attending an event at the NERC offices in Swindon).
- College members agree to review up to the equivalent of eight proposals per year (some schemes count as half a review), although exceptionally you may be asked to agree to review more during each 12-month period (normally no more than three per Responsive Mode scheme closing date).
- Members may be asked by NERC to attend Moderating Panels that make funding recommendations to NERC. There is no limit to the number of meetings members may be asked to attend, but NERC will not normally issue more than three requests per year. NERC will meet reasonable costs for travel (standard class only) and accommodation incurred as a result of panel meeting attendance and subject to the receipt by NERC of the appropriate claim forms and receipts. Eligible College members may also claim a per-meeting attendance fee of £200 (a two-day meeting is counted as one meeting).
- The Peer Review College is expected to provide assessments, advice and guidance across the full spectrum of NERC's research investments. NERC commits to giving clear guidance on expectations and requirements. Members agree to provide NERC with reviews and introducer's comments that accord with the guidance given.
- All responses and reviews must be returned within the period specified by NERC (normally 15 working days).
- Where members are unable to meet a review request, they should notify NERC by declining via the Je-S system within five working days of the request to allow NERC to find an alternative reviewer as soon as possible.
- All members agree to reply to NERC availability requests (for reviewing periods and meeting dates) and to notify NERC of any significant periods of absence.
- College members agree to notify NERC and update the Je-S system if there is any change to their contact details.
- NERC will ensure that members are updated when necessary with developments which affect their role and responsibilities as a Peer Review College member. Members will ensure that they keep up to date with developments that may affect their role as a member of the College, for example, by referring to the Peer Review College pages of the NERC website and reading College related emails.
- NERC will publish Peer Review College and moderating panel membership details (member's name and research/other organisation, where appropriate) details on the NERC website.
- NERC will monitor and review each member's performance annually. This includes: numbers of requests made; numbers of useable reviews completed, number of meetings attended, response times and quality of input. As well as poor performance, members may be asked to withdraw if no proposals are being received within their area of expertise, or if NERC remit changes. NERC reserves the right to discontinue the membership of individuals who fail to observe these terms and conditions.
Note: The Terms and Conditions outlined here apply to membership of the Peer Review College only. Membership of other NERC committees is subject to terms and conditions agreed for each respective body.
Research Council Reviewer Protocols
Introduction / Context Setting
The Research Councils have adopted a code of practice for all those who assist in the work of the Council which embraces the "Seven Principles of Public Life" drawn up by the Nolan Committee and endorsed by Parliament. These principles refer to selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. The impact of this code is described in more detail below.
Confidentiality
The Research Councils operate an open peer review process, while at the same time preserving reviewer anonymity. Reviewers are required to treat proposals in confidence and keep any personally retained documentation (paper or electronic) secure.
Reviewers should review all proposals or final reports in accordance with instructions given in the Je-S Helptext and should refer any questions relating to reviewing the application to the Council, and must not contact applicants. Applicants may be given the opportunity to respond to any completed reviews.
The Councils expect all parties to respect the roles of all involved in the peer review process. If you feel unable to comment on any occasion, please let the Council know as soon as possible so that alternative reviewers can be sought. (Your suggestions for possible alternatives would be welcomed.)
Conflicts of Interest
An important aspect of this code is the avoidance of any conflicts between personal interests and the interests of the Research Councils. In the context of peer review of research proposals and final reports, a conflict of interest might arise as a result of direct, or indirect, personal, academic, financial or working relationships. The acid test is whether a member of the public, knowing the facts of the situation, might reasonably think the judgement could be influenced by the potential conflict of interest.
The selection of academic reviewers is subject to certain constraints within some Councils, who may not wish to approach anyone with a current application under consideration in direct competition with the proposal under review, or from the same institution as any of the applicants. If you think that your involvement in assessing a particular research proposal or final report might be perceived as a conflict of interest, you should decline the invitation to act as a reviewer as soon as possible, or contact the Council for further advice about this matter.
On occasion, applicants ask that certain individuals are not asked to review their proposals or final reports. Given this and the constraints on reviewer selection outlined above please do not show the proposal to others or ask someone to review the proposal or final report in your place.
Equal Opportunities
The Research Councils are committed to equal opportunities in all their activities. Reviewers should ensure that they avoid any bias in the assessment of proposals and final reports due to gender, disability, age, racial or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or religious belief. Comments by the reviewers must not contravene this policy. Defamatory or otherwise actionable comments should also be avoided.
Protection of Ideas
The integrity of peer review is dependent on the selflessness of reviewers. All papers relating to the consideration of proposals and final reports must be treated as strictly confidential and seen for the purpose of review only. After assessment any personally retained documentation relating to the review should be destroyed. Reviewers must not take advantage of any information obtained as a result of their role.
Research Misconduct
Progress in research depends on honesty in the presentation of genuine results. The Research Councils take research misconduct, including misrepresentation in research proposals or final reports, very seriously and we would expect you to draw to our attention any instances which are observed as a matter of urgency. Further advice is given on the Councils' websites, and questions about this issue arising from the review of proposals or final reports should be raised with the Council.