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 | |
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. |
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. 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.