Internal Peer Review Process

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 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.
Who can act as a peer reviewer?	Any permanent member of Department of Environment and Geography academic staff. Any member of SEI-York staff at Grades 7 and above. Any other members of staff within the Department, or in other University of York Departments, that have relevant expertise in the subject area and/or of the funder. - At least one reviewer should ideally have a track record of obtaining grants from the particular funder. - More junior members of staff are encouraged to review proposals in order 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: 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. Author responds with how comments have been addressed in yellow columns, sharing these responses with the reviewers. Once the reviewer is happy for the proposal to be submitted, they should then type their name in the blue box. 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

When you share your application with the peer reviewer, be sure that you also share the specific scheme's link and Assessment Criteria so that the reviewer knows the context of the application and can provide tailored feedback. Funders sometimes even provide forms for reviewers (e.g. NERC Reviewer forms and guidance notes) that you can share.
We typically encourage peer reviewers to be selected to cover both the technical side of the proposal and a broader overview. This means that one reviewer may be in your research area, but that the other reviewer may be further from your specific research area. This second review is important as the broader perspective can be beneficial for commenting on things like the structure of your proposal, how well 'auxiliary' sections (like Impact Summaries) read, and how well they feel you're aligned to the call priorities.
It may be useful for you to discuss what you would like your peer reviewer to focus on when you share your application. This can allow you to get more targeted feedback.