Why grant application peer review needs you – and vice versa

How peer review is important for grant applications, particularly at the MRC
How peer review is important for grant applications, particularly at the MRC
Medical Research Council

To be sure we fund important research questions, high-quality research and well-designed studies we need to ask for the opinions of people who best understand that research area. It is a long, difficult and sometimes imperfect process but it is the only way to ensure we allocate finite funds to the very best projects.

Peer review at the Medical Research Council

Sometimes the office has to approach as many as 15 people to receive only three or four reviews.

The Medical Research Council (MRC) peer review process relies on receiving a sufficient number of reviewer comments. The office approaches the best, most relevant experts first, but if they don’t respond, the net has to be widened. Sometimes the office has to approach as many as 15 people to receive only three or four reviews. That situation is not ideal – it’s a huge amount of work, and it could mean that the application is not reviewed by the most appropriate people.

Committees, boards and panels bring together people with a wealth of expertise. But no board can comprise experts on all topics. So we need to be absolutely sure that those difficult decisions are based on the best possible evidence, and that’s where peer review comes in.

The video below explains the MRC peer review process specifically:

[embedded content]

Peer reviewer expectations

As a peer reviewer, you’re not expected to spend huge amounts of time digging into the literature and checking everything the applicant says they’re going to do. You’re being asked for your opinion and the proposal should contain everything you need to be able to judge it.

Reviews don’t need to be long but the MRC board or panel will rely on them to make judgements. So if you pick up a problem, ensure you describe the nature of the problem. If it’s a really good grant and you can’t find anything wrong, tell them. And if you think it’s an important question, explain why.

I think the more grants you read, the better your own grants become. For early career researchers, reviewing grants is a useful skill to develop

I think the more grants you read, the better your own grants become. For early career researchers, reviewing grants is a useful skill to develop in terms of rapidly assimilating data and coming to a conclusion. Plus, once you’ve seen a good and a bad one, it becomes a lot easier to write your own.

Learning from others

I would say it’s rare, whether your grant is funded or not, not to learn something from the reviewers comments. Even if your grant gets funded the comments can be really helpful in making it better and making sure you don’t make mistakes on the way. For example, experienced peer reviewers can point you to more appropriate methods or alert you to some likely pitfalls.

Reviewing a grant doesn’t take a large amount of time, and if everybody plays their part it means everybody gets more useful reviews and the opportunity to improve.

Engage with the process so you can see it working. By observing an MRC board meeting you see how reviews are used to enable the board to come to a decision. People usually leave with much greater confidence in the system than they had before.

I used to complain and criticize grant funding decisions. Now I’ve sat on boards and committees I don’t complain anymore because I understand how difficult the process is. I think if people genuinely want the best science to be funded they need to recognize that they have an important role to play.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

To be sure we fund important research questions, high-quality research and well-designed studies we need to ask for the opinions of people who best understand that research area. It is a long, difficult and sometimes imperfect process but it is the only way to ensure we allocate finite funds to the very best projects.

Peer review at the Medical Research Council

Sometimes the office has to approach as many as 15 people to receive only three or four reviews.
The Medical Research Council (MRC) peer review process relies on receiving a sufficient number of reviewer comments. The office approaches the best, most relevant experts first, but if they don’t respond, the net has to be widened. Sometimes the office has to approach as many as 15 people to receive only three or four reviews. That situation is not ideal – it’s a huge amount of work, and it could mean that the application is not reviewed by the most appropriate people. Committees, boards and panels bring together people with a wealth of expertise. But no board can comprise experts on all topics. So we need to be absolutely sure that those difficult decisions are based on the best possible evidence, and that’s where peer review comes in. The video below explains the MRC peer review process specifically:

Peer reviewer expectations

As a peer reviewer, you’re not expected to spend huge amounts of time digging into the literature and checking everything the applicant says they’re going to do. You’re being asked for your opinion and the proposal should contain everything you need to be able to judge it. Reviews don’t need to be long but the MRC board or panel will rely on them to make judgements. So if you pick up a problem, ensure you describe the nature of the problem. If it’s a really good grant and you can’t find anything wrong, tell them. And if you think it’s an important question, explain why.
I think the more grants you read, the better your own grants become. For early career researchers, reviewing grants is a useful skill to develop
I think the more grants you read, the better your own grants become. For early career researchers, reviewing grants is a useful skill to develop in terms of rapidly assimilating data and coming to a conclusion. Plus, once you’ve seen a good and a bad one, it becomes a lot easier to write your own.

Learning from others

I would say it’s rare, whether your grant is funded or not, not to learn something from the reviewers comments. Even if your grant gets funded the comments can be really helpful in making it better and making sure you don’t make mistakes on the way. For example, experienced peer reviewers can point you to more appropriate methods or alert you to some likely pitfalls. Reviewing a grant doesn’t take a large amount of time, and if everybody plays their part it means everybody gets more useful reviews and the opportunity to improve. Engage with the process so you can see it working. By observing an MRC board meeting you see how reviews are used to enable the board to come to a decision. People usually leave with much greater confidence in the system than they had before. I used to complain and criticize grant funding decisions. Now I’ve sat on boards and committees I don’t complain anymore because I understand how difficult the process is. I think if people genuinely want the best science to be funded they need to recognize that they have an important role to play.

“Where to publish”: new article out in a medical journal

10th Jul 2015

I have a new journal article out! It is entitled Where to publish and it is available open access in the July issue of Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

The article summarises the recommendations I give in Cofactor workshops and consultancy on the factors authors should consider when choosing a journal. These factors include impact (or prestige), speed, access, reputation, scope and peer review type. I also consider various alternative strategies for choosing which journal to try first and which to have as backups in case of rejection. Here is an excerpt from this part:

There are several common strategies for choosing a journal:

  1. Go down the ‘impact ladder’. Target the highest impact journal first and if rejected, try another journal with a slightly lower impact factor and continue until your paper is accepted somewhere.

  2. Go to a specialist and lower impact journal that is more likely to accept your research.

  3. Go straight to a megajournal, which is more likely to accept your article.

These strategies all have their merits but the first option could take a long time and the other two risk not having the impact that you might have got from a more prestigious journal. Another strategy has therefore emerged:

4. Try a high impact journal first and if rejected, go straight to a megajournal.

…I suggest that you consider trying strategy 3 or 4 albeit with a few enhancements.

The ‘enhancements’ are to choose open access journals, choose high-impact ones that have sister megajournals, and try a presubmission enquiry first.

The article starts with an introduction or ‘abstract’ written by Jyoti Shah, editor of the journal, which focuses more on the problem of ‘predatory’ or scam journals. There is also an appendix added by the journal listing many different factors that might influence your choice of journal. I didn’t write these parts, but I was given a chance to comment on them.

I’m delighted to have an article in such a reputable journal and to have a chance to help its readers choose the best journal for their research. I also hope that the article will be read more widely than just among surgeons, and for that reason I asked for it to be made open access as a condition of my writing. After a bit of prompting the journal has now made it completely open access, with a CC By licence (it was already free to read).

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

I have a new journal article out! It is entitled Where to publish and it is available open access in the July issue of Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. The article summarises the recommendations I give in Cofactor workshops and consultancy on the factors authors should consider when choosing a journal. These factors include impact (or prestige), speed, access, reputation, scope and peer review type. I also consider various alternative strategies for choosing which journal to try first and which to have as backups in case of rejection. Here is an excerpt from this part:
There are several common strategies for choosing a journal:
  1. Go down the ‘impact ladder’. Target the highest impact journal first and if rejected, try another journal with a slightly lower impact factor and continue until your paper is accepted somewhere.

  2. Go to a specialist and lower impact journal that is more likely to accept your research.

  3. Go straight to a megajournal, which is more likely to accept your article.

These strategies all have their merits but the first option could take a long time and the other two risk not having the impact that you might have got from a more prestigious journal. Another strategy has therefore emerged:
4. Try a high impact journal first and if rejected, go straight to a megajournal.
…I suggest that you consider trying strategy 3 or 4 albeit with a few enhancements.
The ‘enhancements’ are to choose open access journals, choose high-impact ones that have sister megajournals, and try a presubmission enquiry first. The article starts with an introduction or ‘abstract’ written by Jyoti Shah, editor of the journal, which focuses more on the problem of ‘predatory’ or scam journals. There is also an appendix added by the journal listing many different factors that might influence your choice of journal. I didn’t write these parts, but I was given a chance to comment on them. I’m delighted to have an article in such a reputable journal and to have a chance to help its readers choose the best journal for their research. I also hope that the article will be read more widely than just among surgeons, and for that reason I asked for it to be made open access as a condition of my writing. After a bit of prompting the journal has now made it completely open access, with a CC By licence (it was already free to read).