- The University of York requires a robust internal review system for research applications for external funding in order to increase success rates. Higher success rates are beneficial for both the University and individual members of staff.
- It is intended that the internal peer review procedure be as useful and efficient as possible.
- The internal peer review is an opportunity to get useful feedback on proposals and to spread good practice.
| Core Department | SEI-Y | |
|---|---|---|
How do I start the peer review process? | Where applicable (figure 1), arrangements of the peer review process will automatically begin once a Department of Environment and Geography PI/ York-Lead creates a Worktribe record (ideally at least 25 working days before the funder’s deadline) or notifies us at environment-research@york.ac.uk. | Where applicable (figure 1), arrangements of the peer review process will automatically begin once an SEI-York PI/ York-Lead completes a Project Concept Note (PCN) in PMEC ( at least 25 working days before the funder’s deadline ). |
Who assigns the reviewers and manages the process? | The Department of Environment and Geography Research Support Team will assign the reviewers, in | The SEI York Centre Director (CD) will assign the reviewers, in consultation with the PI and the Chair of the DRC. The PI should liaise directly with the peer reviewers, agreeing suitable time scales and seeking the help of the SEI York CD/Chair of the DRC in case of difficulty. |
Who can act as a peer reviewer? |
- At least one reviewer should ideally have a track record of obtaining grants from the particular funder. | |
When do I need to share my draft? | The PI/York-Lead should share a full draft proposal (including case for support and impact statement type documents) with the reviewers at least 20 working days prior to funder deadline. | |
What documentation is needed? | A review document (figure 2), will be shared with the PI/York-Lead and reviewers. This will be stored in the proposal’s automatically created shared Google Drive folder:
This document is reviewed by the Head of Department before submission is authorised. | |
Figure 1 - Guide to level and nature of Departmental peer review
This is a guide only and other factors may affect the level and nature of peer review appropriate for a given proposal. Please consult with the Chair of DRC in case of doubt.
Figure 2 - Peer Review document
1, Reviewer lists their main comments in green columns (these should be a brief summary only). If the comments are minor enough for the Reviewer to feel that they do not need to see a response from the Author, skip to Step 3 ;
2, Author responds with how comments have been addressed in yellow columns;
3, Once the reviewer is happy for the proposal to be submitted, they should then type their name in the blue box.