...
Why do we do Departmental Peer Review?
Peer review is an opportunity to get useful feedback on proposals from individuals who are seeing a research proposal for the first time. This provides a fresh perspective, can pick up on aspects that may have been missed, and can help spread good practice within the Department. The University requires a robust internal review system for research applications
...
to external funders because it can lead to increased success rates, which are beneficial for both the University and individual members of staff.
...
When is Departmental Peer Review required?
The table below outlines our Departmental Peer Review requirements. Other factors may affect the peer review appropriate for a proposal, such as outline bids which do not require in-depth scientific detail. Please consult the Chair of Departmental Research Committee (DRC) if you feel that peer review should not be required for your research bid.
Departmental Peer Review Requirements | |||
Non-competitive bid | Not required | ||
PI or York Lead is in another York department | Not required (review to be carried out by lead department as required) | ||
PI is at an external institution | Not required (review to be carried out by lead institution) If a York Lead based in the Department is writing large parts of the application, such as leading a work package, then peer review can be requested | ||
PI is within the Department | Experience of successful proposal writing | ||
Little experience | Extensive experience | ||
Application value | < £20k | Recommended | Not required |
| ≥ £20k - £200k | Minimum 2 reviewers | Minimum 1 reviewer | |
| > £200k | Minimum 2 reviewers | ||
How does the process work?
Core Department | SEI-Y |
How do I start the peer review process?
Getting Started | Check the Departmental Peer Review Requirements table (above) to see whether you need to undergo peer review. If you need peer review, you should contact colleagues and agree a schedule that suits the workloads of both yourself and the reviewers. Research Support are happy to help arrange reviewers and answer any queries (environment-research@york.ac.uk |
). If you are struggling to find suitable peer reviewers, consider using the Science Faculty Peer Review College. We encourage you to allow at least 10 working days for peer review to take place. The proposal doesn’t need to be in its final form when it is sent out for review. Please inform Research Support who your reviewers will be. We track this to ensure an even workload across the Department. | SEI-Y staff should follow the Core Department Peer Review process and ‘Getting Started' advice with the following exception: The peer review process will automatically begin |
when an SEI-York PI / York-Lead completes |
an SEI Project Concept Note (PCN) in PMEC, identifying your proposed peer reviewers for SEI York Centre Director (CD) review and approval. This should ideally be done at least |
20 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 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 Research Support Team/ Chair of the DRC in case of difficulty.
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.
Peer Review Process | The PI should send the peer reviewer(s):
Peer reviewers should provide comments on a Word document or Google Doc of the proposal. When peer review is complete, you need to upload the document(s) to the Documents tab on Worktribe as proof that the review has taken place. This allows the Head of Department and SEI-Y Centre Director to review the document(s) before giving bid approval. | |
Who can do peer review? |
| |
|
|
|
Ideally, at least one reviewer should |
have a track record of obtaining grants from the |
funder. |
Less experienced members of staff are encouraged to review proposals |
as part of their career development and to spread good practice. |
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.
Tips and Advice
...
For a peer review requiring two reviewers, one of the reviewers could be a grade 6 member of staff. | ||
Faculty Peer Review College | If you are struggling to find an appropriate peer reviewer for your research area you can request a review by an academic within the Science Faculty Peer Review College. Please speak to Research Support if you would like to utilise this option. | |
Tips and Advice
Funders sometimes provide forms for reviewers (e.g. NERC
...
reviewer forms and guidance notes) that you can share to guide peer reviewers.
Discuss what you would like your peer reviewer to focus on when you share your application. This can enable more targeted feedback.
We
...
encourage
...
you to have a reviewer for both the technical side of the proposal and a broader overview. This means that one reviewer may be in your research area
...
and the other
...
may not. This
...
broader review can be beneficial for
...
areas like the structure of your proposal,
...
ensuring the proposal is understandable for a non-technical panel, and assessing how well you're aligned to
...
call priorities
...
.