‘Might have a relevant impact on patient care, but to what extent does it align with the aims of this programme.’
Short title of aspects in the observation matrix . | Examples of arguments . |
---|---|
Criterion: scientific quality | |
Fit in programme objectives | ‘This disease is underdiagnosed, and undertreated, and therefore fits the criteria of this call very well.’ ‘Might have a relevant impact on patient care, but to what extent does it align with the aims of this programme.’ |
Match science and health-care problem | ‘It is not properly compared to the current situation (standard of care).’ ‘Super relevant application with a fitting plan, perhaps a little too mechanistic.’ |
International competitiveness | ‘Something is done all over the world, but they do many more evaluations, however.’ |
Feasibility of the aims | ‘… because this is a discovery study the power calculation is difficult, but I would recommend to increase the sample size.’ ‘It’s very risky, because this is an exploratory … study without hypotheses.’ ‘The aim is to improve …, but there is no control to compare with.’ ‘Well substantiated that they are able to achieve the objectives.’ |
Plan of work | ‘Will there be enough cases in this cohort?’ ‘The budget is no longer correct.’ ‘Plan is good, but … doubts about the approach, because too little information….’ |
Criterion: societal relevance | |
Health-care problem | ‘Relevant problem for a small group.’ ‘… but is this a serious health condition?’ ‘Prevalence is low, but patients do die, morbidity is very high.’ |
Contribution to solution | ‘What will this add since we already do…?’ ‘It is unclear what the intervention will be after the diagnosis.’ ‘Relevance is not good. Side effects are not known and neither is effectiveness.’ |
Next step in science | ‘What is needed to go from this retrospective study towards implementation?’ ‘It’s not clear whether that work package is necessary or “nice to have”.’ ‘Knowledge utilisation paragraph is standard, as used by copywriters.’ |
Activities towards partners | ‘What do the applicants do to change the current practice?’ ‘Important that the company also contributes financially to the further development.’ ‘This proposal includes a good communication plan.’ |
Participation/diversity | ‘A user committee is described, but it isn’t well thought through: what is their role?’ ‘It’s also important to invite relatives of patients to participate.’ ‘They thought really well what their patient group can contribute to the study plan.’ |
Applicant-related aspects | |
Scientific publication applicant | ‘One project leader only has one original paper, …, focus more on other diseases.’ ‘Publication output not excellent. Conference papers and posters of local meetings, CV not so strong.’ |
Background applicant | ‘… not enough with this expertise involved in the leadership.’ ‘Very good CV, … has won many awards.’ ‘Candidate is excellent, top 10 to 20 in this field….’ |
Reputation applicant | ‘… the main applicant is a hotshot in this field.’ ‘Candidate leads cohorts as …, gets a no.’ |
Societal skills | ‘Impressed that they took my question seriously, that made my day.’ ‘They were very honest about overoptimism in the proposal.’ ‘Good group, but they seem quite aware of their own brilliance.’ |
HTA | |
HTA | ‘Concrete revenues are negative, however improvement in quality-adjusted life years but very shaky.’ |
Committee-related aspects | |
Personal experience with the applicant | ‘This researcher only wants to acquire knowledge, nothing further.’ ‘I reviewed him before and he is not very good at interviews.’ |
Personal/unasserted preference | ‘Excellent presentation, much better than the application.’ (Without further elaboration) ‘This academic lab has advantages, but also disadvantages with regard to independence.’ ‘If it can be done anywhere, it is in this group.’ |
Relation with applicants’ institute/network | ‘May come up with new models, they’re linked with a group in … who can do this very well.’ |
Comparison with other applications | ‘What is the relevance compared to the other proposal? They do something similar.’ ‘Look at the proposals as a whole, portfolio, we have clinical and we have fundamental.’ |
Data were primarily collected through observations. Our observations of review panel meetings were non-participatory: the observer and goal of the observation were introduced at the start of the meeting, without further interactions during the meeting. To aid in the processing of observations, some meetings were audiotaped (sound only). Presentations or responses of applicants were not noted and were not part of the analysis. The observer made notes on the ongoing discussion and scored the arguments while listening. One meeting was not attended in person and only observed and scored by listening to the audiotape recording. Because this made identification of the panel members unreliable, this panel meeting was excluded from the analysis of the third research question on how arguments used differ between panel members with different perspectives.
We gathered and analysed all brochures and assessment forms used by the review panels in order to answer our second research question on the correspondence of arguments used with the formal criteria. Several programmes consisted of multiple grant calls: in that case, the specific call brochure was gathered and analysed, not the overall programme brochure. Additional documentation (e.g. instructional presentations at the start of the panel meeting) was not included in the document analysis. All included documents were marked using the aforementioned observation matrix. The panel-related arguments were not used because this category reflects the personal arguments of panel members that are not part of brochures or instructions. To avoid potential differences in scoring methods, two of the authors independently scored half of the documents that were checked and validated afterwards by the other. Differences were discussed until a consensus was reached.
In order to answer the third research question, background information on panel members was collected. We categorised the panel members into five common types of panel members: scientific, clinical scientific, health-care professional/clinical, patient, and policy. First, a list of all panel members was composed including their scientific and professional backgrounds and affiliations. The theoretical notion that reviewers represent different types of users of research and therefore potential impact domains (academic, social, economic, and cultural) was leading in the categorisation ( Meijer 2012 ; Spaapen and Van Drooge 2011 ). Because clinical researchers play a dual role in both advancing research as a fellow academic and as a user of the research output in health-care practice, we divided the academic members into two categories of non-clinical and clinical researchers. Multiple types of professional actors participated in each review panel. These were divided into two groups for the analysis: health-care professionals (without current academic activity) and policymakers in the health-care sector. No representatives of the private sector participated in the observed review panels. From the public domain, (at-risk) patients and patient representatives were part of several review panels. Only publicly available information was used to classify the panel members. Members were assigned to one category only: categorisation took place based on the specific role and expertise for which they were appointed to the panel.
In two of the four DHF programmes, the assessment procedure included the CSQ. In these two programmes, representatives of this CSQ participated in the scientific panel to articulate the findings of the CSQ meeting during the final assessment meeting. Two grant programmes were assessed by a review panel with solely (clinical) scientific members.
Data were processed using ATLAS.ti 8 and Microsoft Excel 2010 to produce descriptive statistics. All observed arguments were coded and given a randomised identification code for the panel member using that particular argument. The number of times an argument type was observed was used as an indicator for the relative importance of that argument in the appraisal of proposals. With this approach, a practical and reproducible method for research funders to evaluate the effect of policy changes on peer review was developed. If codes or notes were unclear, post-observation validation of codes was carried out based on observation matrix notes. Arguments that were noted by the observer but could not be matched with an existing code were first coded as a ‘non-existing’ code, and these were resolved by listening back to the audiotapes. Arguments that could not be assigned to a panel member were assigned a ‘missing panel member’ code. A total of 4.7 per cent of all codes were assigned a ‘missing panel member’ code.
After the analyses, two meetings were held to reflect on the results: one with the CSQ and the other with the programme coordinators of both organisations. The goal of these meetings was to improve our interpretation of the findings, disseminate the results derived from this project, and identify topics for further analyses or future studies.
Our study focuses on studying the final phase of the peer review process of research applications in a real-life setting. Our design, a non-participant observation of peer review panels, also introduced several challenges ( Liu and Maitlis 2010 ).
First, the independent review phase or pre-application phase was not part of our study. We therefore could not assess to what extent attention to certain aspects of scientific quality or societal relevance and impact in the review phase influenced the topics discussed during the meeting.
Second, the most important challenge of overt non-participant observations is the observer effect: the danger of causing reactivity in those under study. We believe that the consequences of this effect on our conclusions were limited because panellists are used to external observers in the meetings of these two funders. The observer briefly explained the goal of the study during the introductory round of the panel in general terms. The observer sat as unobtrusively as possible and avoided reactivity to discussions. Similar to previous observations of panels, we experienced that the fact that an observer was present faded into the background during a meeting ( Roumbanis 2021a ). However, a limited observer effect can never be entirely excluded.
Third, our design to only score the arguments raised, and not the responses of the applicant, or information on the content of the proposals, has its positives and negatives. With this approach, we could assure the anonymity of the grant procedures reviewed, the applicants and proposals, panels, and individual panellists. This was an important condition for the funders involved. We took the frequency arguments used as a proxy for the relative importance of that argument in decision-making, which undeniably also has its caveats. Our data collection approach limits more in-depth reflection on which arguments were decisive in decision-making and on group dynamics during the interaction with the applicants as non-verbal and non-content-related comments were not captured in this study.
Fourth, despite this being one of the largest observational studies on the peer review assessment of grant applications with the observation of ten panels in eight grant programmes, many variables might explain differences in arguments used within and beyond our view. Examples of ‘confounding’ variables are the many variations in panel composition, the differences in objectives of the programmes, and the range of the funding programmes. Our study should therefore be seen as exploratory and thus warrants caution in drawing conclusions.
The grant programmes included in this study reflected a broad range of biomedical and health funding programmes, ranging from fellowship grants to translational research and applied health research. All formal documents available to the applicants and to the review panel were retrieved for both ZonMw and the DHF. In total, eighteen documents corresponding to the eight grant programmes were studied. The number of proposals assessed per programme varied from three to thirty-three. The duration of the panel meetings varied between 2 h and two consecutive days. Together, this resulted in a large spread in the number of total arguments used in an individual meeting and in a grant programme as a whole. In the shortest meeting, 49 arguments were observed versus 254 in the longest, with a mean of 126 arguments per meeting and on average 15 arguments per proposal.
We found consistency between how criteria were operationalised in the grant programme’s brochures and in the assessment forms of the review panels overall. At the same time, because the number of elements included in the observation matrix is limited, there was a considerable diversity in the arguments that fall within each aspect (see examples in Table 1 ). Some of these differences could possibly be explained by differences in language used and the level of detail in the observation matrix, the brochure, and the panel’s instructions. This was especially the case in the applicant-related aspects in which the observation matrix was more detailed than the text in the brochure and assessment forms.
In interpretating our findings, it is important to take into account that, even though our data were largely complete and the observation matrix matched well with the description of the criteria in the brochures and assessment forms, there was a large diversity in the type and number of arguments used and in the number of proposals assessed in the grant programmes included in our study.
For our first research question, we explored the number and type of arguments used in the panel meetings. Figure 1 provides an overview of the arguments used. Scientific quality was discussed most. The number of times the feasibility of the aims was discussed clearly stands out in comparison to all other arguments. Also, the match between the science and the problem studied and the plan of work were frequently discussed aspects of scientific quality. International competitiveness of the proposal was discussed the least of all five scientific arguments.
The number of arguments used in panel meetings.
Attention was paid to societal relevance and impact in the panel meetings of both organisations. Yet, the language used differed somewhat between organisations. The contribution to a solution and the next step in science were the most often used societal arguments. At ZonMw, the impact of the health-care problem studied and the activities towards partners were less frequently discussed than the other three societal arguments. At the DHF, the five societal arguments were used equally often.
With the exception of the fellowship programme meeting, applicant-related arguments were not often used. The fellowship panel used arguments related to the applicant and to scientific quality about equally often. Committee-related arguments were also rarely used in the majority of the eight grant programmes observed. In three out of the ten panel meetings, one or two arguments were observed, which were related to personal experience with the applicant or their direct network. In seven out of ten meetings, statements were observed, which were unasserted or were explicitly announced as reflecting a personal preference. The frequency varied between one and seven statements (sixteen in total), which is low in comparison to the other arguments used (see Fig. 1 for examples).
The balance in the use of scientific and societal arguments varied strongly per grant programme, panel, and organisation. At ZonMw, two meetings had approximately an equal balance in societal and scientific arguments. In the other two meetings, scientific arguments were used twice to four times as often as societal arguments. At the DHF, three types of panels were observed. Different patterns in the relative use of societal and scientific arguments were observed for each of these panel types. In the two CSQ-only meetings the societal arguments were used approximately twice as often as scientific arguments. In the two meetings of the scientific panels, societal arguments were infrequently used (between zero and four times per argument category). In the combined societal and scientific panel meetings, the use of societal and scientific arguments was more balanced.
In order to answer our second research question, we looked into the relation of the arguments used with the formal criteria. We observed that a broader range of arguments were often used in comparison to how the criteria were described in the brochure and assessment instruction. However, arguments related to aspects that were consequently included in the brochure and instruction seemed to be discussed more frequently than in programmes where those aspects were not consistently included or were not included at all. Although the match of the science with the health-care problem and the background and reputation of the applicant were not always made explicit in the brochure or instructions, they were discussed in many panel meetings. Supplementary Fig. S1 provides a visualisation of how arguments used differ between the programmes in which those aspects were, were not, consistently included in the brochure and instruction forms.
To answer our third question, we looked into the differences in arguments used between panel members representing a scientific, clinical scientific, professional, policy, or patient perspective. In each research programme, the majority of panellists had a scientific background ( n = 35), thirty-four members had a clinical scientific background, twenty had a health professional/clinical background, eight members represented a policy perspective, and fifteen represented a patient perspective. From the total number of arguments (1,097), two-thirds were made by members with a scientific or clinical scientific perspective. Members with a scientific background engaged most actively in the discussion with a mean of twelve arguments per member. Similarly, clinical scientists and health-care professionals participated with a mean of nine arguments, and members with a policy and patient perspective put forward the least number of arguments on average, namely, seven and eight. Figure 2 provides a complete overview of the total and mean number of arguments used by the different disciplines in the various panels.
The total and mean number of arguments displayed per subgroup of panel members.
In meetings of both organisations, we observed a diverse use of arguments by the panel members. Yet, the use of arguments varied depending on the background of the panel member (see Fig. 3 ). Those with a scientific and clinical scientific perspective used primarily scientific arguments. As could be expected, health-care professionals and patients used societal arguments more often.
The use of arguments differentiated by panel member background.
Further breakdown of arguments across backgrounds showed clear differences in the use of scientific arguments between the different disciplines of panellists. Scientists and clinical scientists discussed the feasibility of the aims more than twice as often as their second most often uttered element of scientific quality, which was the match between the science and the problem studied . Patients and members with a policy or health professional background put forward fewer but more varied scientific arguments.
Patients and health-care professionals accounted for approximately half of the societal arguments used, despite being a much smaller part of the panel’s overall composition. In other words, members with a scientific perspective were less likely to use societal arguments. The relevance of the health-care problem studied, activities towards partners , and arguments related to participation and diversity were not used often by this group. Patients often used arguments related to patient participation and diversity and activities towards partners , although the frequency of the use of the latter differed per organisation.
The majority of the applicant-related arguments were put forward by scientists, including clinical scientists. Committee-related arguments were very rare and are therefore not differentiated by panel member background, except comments related to a comparison with other applications. These arguments were mainly put forward by panel members with a scientific background. HTA -related arguments were often used by panel members with a scientific perspective. Panel members with other perspectives used this argument scarcely (see Supplementary Figs S2–S4 for the visual presentation of the differences between panel members on all aspects included in the matrix).
Our observations show that most arguments for scientific quality were often used. However, except for the feasibility , the frequency of arguments used varied strongly between the meetings and between the individual proposals that were discussed. The fact that most arguments were not consistently used is not surprising given the results from previous studies that showed heterogeneity in grant application assessments and low consistency in comments and scores by independent reviewers ( Abdoul et al. 2012 ; Pier et al. 2018 ). In an analysis of written assessments on nine observed dimensions, no dimension was used in more than 45 per cent of the reviews ( Hartmann and Neidhardt 1990 ).
There are several possible explanations for this heterogeneity. Roumbanis (2021a) described how being responsive to the different challenges in the proposals and to the points of attention arising from the written assessments influenced discussion in panels. Also when a disagreement arises, more time is spent on discussion ( Roumbanis 2021a ). One could infer that unambiguous, and thus not debated, aspects might remain largely undetected in our study. We believe, however, that the main points relevant to the assessment will not remain entirely unmentioned, because most panels in our study started the discussion with a short summary of the proposal, the written assessment, and the rebuttal. Lamont (2009) , however, points out that opening statements serve more goals than merely decision-making. They can also increase the credibility of the panellist, showing their comprehension and balanced assessment of an application. We can therefore not entirely disentangle whether the arguments observed most were also found to be most important or decisive or those were simply the topics that led to most disagreement.
An interesting difference with Roumbanis’ study was the available discussion time per proposal. In our study, most panels handled a limited number of proposals, allowing for longer discussions in comparison with the often 2-min time frame that Roumbanis (2021b) described, potentially contributing to a wider range of arguments being discussed. Limited time per proposal might also limit the number of panellists contributing to the discussion per proposal ( De Bont 2014 ).
We found that the language used for the operationalisation of the assessment criteria in programme brochures and in the observation matrix was much more detailed than in the instruction for the panel, which was often very concise. The exercise also illustrated that many terms were used interchangeably.
This was especially true for the applicant-related aspects. Several panels discussed how talent should be assessed. This confusion is understandable when considering the changing values in research and its assessment ( Moher et al. 2018 ) and the fact that the instruction of the funders was very concise. For example, it was not explicated whether the individual or the team should be assessed. Arensbergen et al. (2014b) described how in grant allocation processes, talent is generally assessed using limited characteristics. More objective and quantifiable outputs often prevailed at the expense of recognising and rewarding a broad variety of skills and traits combining professional, social, and individual capital ( DORA 2013 ).
In addition, committee-related arguments, like personal experiences with the applicant or their institute, were rarely used in our study. Comparisons between proposals were sometimes made without further argumentation, mainly by scientific panel members. This was especially pronounced in one (fellowship) grant programme with a high number of proposals. In this programme, the panel meeting concentrated on quickly comparing the quality of the applicants and of the proposals based on the reviewer’s judgement, instead of a more in-depth discussion of the different aspects of the proposals. Because the review phase was not part of this study, the question of which aspects have been used for the assessment of the proposals in this panel therefore remains partially unanswered. However, weighing and comparing proposals on different aspects and with different inputs is a core element of scientific peer review, both in the review of papers and in the review of grants ( Hirschauer 2010 ). The large role of scientific panel members in comparing proposals is therefore not surprising.
One could anticipate that more consequent language in the operationalising criteria may lead to more clarity for both applicants and panellists and to more consistency in the assessment of research proposals. The trend in our observations was that arguments were used less when the related criteria were not or were consequently included in the brochure and panel instruction. It remains, however, challenging to disentangle the influence of the formal definitions of criteria on the arguments used. Previous studies also encountered difficulties in studying the role of the formal instruction in peer review but concluded that this role is relatively limited ( Langfeldt 2001 ; Reinhart 2010 ).
The lack of a clear operationalisation of criteria can contribute to heterogeneity in peer review as many scholars found that assessors differ in the conceptualisation of good science and to the importance they attach to various aspects of research quality and societal relevance ( Abdoul et al. 2012 ; Geurts 2016 ; Scholten et al. 2018 ; Van den Brink et al. 2016 ). The large variation and absence of a gold standard in the interpretation of scientific quality and societal relevance affect the consistency of peer review. As a consequence, it is challenging to systematically evaluate and improve peer review in order to fund the research that contributes most to science and society. To contribute to responsible research and innovation, it is, therefore, important that funders invest in a more consistent and conscientious peer review process ( Curry et al. 2020 ; DORA 2013 ).
A common conceptualisation of scientific quality and societal relevance and impact could improve the alignment between views on good scientific conduct, programmes’ objectives, and the peer review in practice. Such a conceptualisation could contribute to more transparency and quality in the assessment of research. By involving panel members from all relevant backgrounds, including the research community, health-care professionals, and societal actors, in a better operationalisation of criteria, more inclusive views of good science can be implemented more systematically in the peer review assessment of research proposals. The ZonMw Framework Fostering Responsible Research Practices is an example of an initiative aiming to support standardisation and integration ( Reijmerink et al. 2020 ).
Given the lack of a common definition or conceptualisation of scientific quality and societal relevance, our study made an important decision by choosing to use a fixed set of detailed aspects of two important criteria as a gold standard to score the brochures, the panel instructions, and the arguments used by the panels. This approach proved helpful in disentangling the different components of scientific quality and societal relevance. Having said that, it is important not to oversimplify the causes for heterogeneity in peer review because these substantive arguments are not independent of non-cognitive, emotional, or social aspects ( Lamont and Guetzkow 2016 ; Reinhart 2010 ).
Both funders participating in our study have an outspoken public mission that requests sufficient attention to societal aspects in assessment processes. In reality, as observed in several panels, the main focus of peer review meetings is on scientific arguments. Next to the possible explanations earlier, the composition of the panel might play a role in explaining arguments used in panel meetings. Our results have shown that health-care professionals and patients bring in more societal arguments than scientists, including those who are also clinicians. It is, however, not that simple. In the more diverse panels, panel members, regardless of their backgrounds, used more societal arguments than in the less diverse panels.
Observing ten panel meetings was sufficient to explore differences in arguments used by panel members with different backgrounds. The pattern of (primarily) scientific arguments being raised by panels with mainly scientific members is not surprising. After all, it is their main task to assess the scientific content of grant proposals and fit their competencies. As such, one could argue, depending on how one justifies the relationship between science and society, that health-care professionals and patients might be better suited to assess the value for potential users of research results. Scientific panel members and clinical scientists in our study used less arguments that reflect on opening up and connecting science directly to others who can bring it further (being industry, health-care professionals, or other stakeholders). Patients filled this gap since these two types of arguments were the most prevalent type put forward by them. Making an active connection with society apparently needs a broader, more diverse panel for scientists to direct their attention to more societal arguments. Evident from our observations is that in panels with patients and health-care professionals, their presence seemed to increase the attention placed on arguments beyond the scientific arguments put forward by all panel members, including scientists. This conclusion is congruent with the observation that there was a more equal balance in the use of societal and scientific arguments in the scientific panels in which the CSQ participated. This illustrates that opening up peer review panels to non-scientific members creates an opportunity to focus on both the contribution and the integrative rationality ( Glerup and Horst 2014 ) or, in other words, to allow productive interactions between scientific and non-scientific actors. This corresponds with previous research that suggests that with regard to societal aspects, reviews from mixed panels were broader and richer ( Luo et al. 2021 ). In panels with non-scientific experts, more emphasis was placed on the role of the proposed research process to increase the likelihood of societal impact over the causal importance of scientific excellence for broader impacts. This is in line with the findings that panels with more disciplinary diversity, in range and also by including generalist experts, applied more versatile styles to reach consensus and paid more attention to relevance and pragmatic value ( Huutoniemi 2012 ).
Our observations further illustrate that patients and health-care professionals were less vocal in panels than (clinical) scientists and were in the minority. This could reflect their social role and lower perceived authority in the panel. Several guides are available for funders to stimulate the equal participation of patients in science. These guides are also applicable to their involvement in peer review panels. Measures to be taken include the support and training to help prepare patients for their participation in deliberations with renowned scientists and explicitly addressing power differences ( De Wit et al. 2016 ). Panel chairs and programme officers have to set and supervise the conditions for the functioning of both the individual panel members and the panel as a whole ( Lamont 2009 ).
In future studies, it is important to further disentangle the role of the operationalisation and appraisal of assessment criteria in reducing heterogeneity in the arguments used by panels. More controlled experimental settings are a valuable addition to the current mainly observational methodologies applied to disentangle some of the cognitive and social factors that influence the functioning and argumentation of peer review panels. Reusing data from the panel observations and the data on the written reports could also provide a starting point for a bottom-up approach to create a more consistent and shared conceptualisation and operationalisation of assessment criteria.
To further understand the effects of opening up review panels to non-scientific peers, it is valuable to compare the role of diversity and interdisciplinarity in solely scientific panels versus panels that also include non-scientific experts.
In future studies, differences between domains and types of research should also be addressed. We hypothesise that biomedical and health research is perhaps more suited for the inclusion of non-scientific peers in panels than other research domains. For example, it is valuable to better understand how potentially relevant users can be well enough identified in other research fields and to what extent non-academics can contribute to assessing the possible value of, especially early or blue sky, research.
The goal of our study was to explore in practice which arguments regarding the main criteria of scientific quality and societal relevance were used by peer review panels of biomedical and health research funding programmes. We showed that there is a wide diversity in the number and range of arguments used, but three main scientific aspects were discussed most frequently. These are the following: is it a feasible approach; does the science match the problem , and is the work plan scientifically sound? Nevertheless, these scientific aspects were accompanied by a significant amount of discussion of societal aspects, of which the contribution to a solution is the most prominent. In comparison with scientific panellists, non-scientific panellists, such as health-care professionals, policymakers, and patients, often use a wider range of arguments and other societal arguments. Even more striking was that, even though non-scientific peers were often outnumbered and less vocal in panels, scientists also used a wider range of arguments when non-scientific peers were present.
It is relevant that two health research funders collaborated in the current study to reflect on and improve peer review in research funding. There are few studies published that describe live observations of peer review panel meetings. Many studies focus on alternatives for peer review or reflect on the outcomes of the peer review process, instead of reflecting on the practice and improvement of peer review assessment of grant proposals. Privacy and confidentiality concerns of funders also contribute to the lack of information on the functioning of peer review panels. In this study, both organisations were willing to participate because of their interest in research funding policies in relation to enhancing the societal value and impact of science. The study provided them with practical suggestions, for example, on how to improve the alignment in language used in programme brochures and instructions of review panels, and contributed to valuable knowledge exchanges between organisations. We hope that this publication stimulates more research funders to evaluate their peer review approach in research funding and share their insights.
For a long time, research funders relied solely on scientists for designing and executing peer review of research proposals, thereby delegating responsibility for the process. Although review panels have a discretionary authority, it is important that funders set and supervise the process and the conditions. We argue that one of these conditions should be the diversification of peer review panels and opening up panels for non-scientific peers.
Supplementary material is available at Science and Public Policy online.
Details of the data and information on how to request access is available from the first author.
Joey Gijbels and Wendy Reijmerink are employed by ZonMw. Rebecca Abma-Schouten is employed by the Dutch Heart Foundation and as external PhD candidate affiliated with the Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University.
A special thanks to the panel chairs and programme officers of ZonMw and the DHF for their willingness to participate in this project. We thank Diny Stekelenburg, an internship student at ZonMw, for her contributions to the project. Our sincerest gratitude to Prof. Paul Wouters, Sarah Coombs, and Michiel van der Vaart for proofreading and their valuable feedback. Finally, we thank the editors and anonymous reviewers of Science and Public Policy for their thorough and insightful reviews and recommendations. Their contributions are recognisable in the final version of this paper.
Abdoul H. , Perrey C. , Amiel P. , et al. ( 2012 ) ‘ Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices ’, PLoS One , 7 : 1 – 15 .
Google Scholar
Abma-Schouten R. Y. ( 2017 ) ‘ Maatschappelijke Kwaliteit van Onderzoeksvoorstellen ’, Dutch Heart Foundation .
Alla K. , Hall W. D. , Whiteford H. A. , et al. ( 2017 ) ‘ How Do We Define the Policy Impact of Public Health Research? A Systematic Review ’, Health Research Policy and Systems , 15 : 84.
Benedictus R. , Miedema F. , and Ferguson M. W. J. ( 2016 ) ‘ Fewer Numbers, Better Science ’, Nature , 538 : 453 – 4 .
Chalmers I. , Bracken M. B. , Djulbegovic B. , et al. ( 2014 ) ‘ How to Increase Value and Reduce Waste When Research Priorities Are Set ’, The Lancet , 383 : 156 – 65 .
Curry S. , De Rijcke S. , Hatch A. , et al. ( 2020 ) ‘ The Changing Role of Funders in Responsible Research Assessment: Progress, Obstacles and the Way Ahead ’, RoRI Working Paper No. 3, London : Research on Research Institute (RoRI) .
De Bont A. ( 2014 ) ‘ Beoordelen Bekeken. Reflecties op het Werk van Een Programmacommissie van ZonMw ’, ZonMw .
De Rijcke S. , Wouters P. F. , Rushforth A. D. , et al. ( 2016 ) ‘ Evaluation Practices and Effects of Indicator Use—a Literature Review ’, Research Evaluation , 25 : 161 – 9 .
De Wit A. M. , Bloemkolk D. , Teunissen T. , et al. ( 2016 ) ‘ Voorwaarden voor Succesvolle Betrokkenheid van Patiënten/cliënten bij Medisch Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek ’, Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg , 94 : 91 – 100 .
Del Carmen Calatrava Moreno M. , Warta K. , Arnold E. , et al. ( 2019 ) Science Europe Study on Research Assessment Practices . Technopolis Group Austria .
Google Preview
Demicheli V. and Di Pietrantonj C. ( 2007 ) ‘ Peer Review for Improving the Quality of Grant Applications ’, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , 2 : MR000003.
Den Oudendammer W. M. , Noordhoek J. , Abma-Schouten R. Y. , et al. ( 2019 ) ‘ Patient Participation in Research Funding: An Overview of When, Why and How Amongst Dutch Health Funds ’, Research Involvement and Engagement , 5 .
Diabetesfonds ( n.d. ) Maatschappelijke Adviesraad < https://www.diabetesfonds.nl/over-ons/maatschappelijke-adviesraad > accessed 18 Sept 2022 .
Dijstelbloem H. , Huisman F. , Miedema F. , et al. ( 2013 ) ‘ Science in Transition Position Paper: Waarom de Wetenschap Niet Werkt Zoals het Moet, En Wat Daar aan te Doen Is ’, Utrecht : Science in Transition .
Forsyth D. R. ( 1999 ) Group Dynamics , 3rd edn. Belmont : Wadsworth Publishing Company .
Geurts J. ( 2016 ) ‘ Wat Goed Is, Herken Je Meteen ’, NRC Handelsblad < https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/10/28/wat-goed-is-herken-je-meteen-4975248-a1529050 > accessed 6 Mar 2022 .
Glerup C. and Horst M. ( 2014 ) ‘ Mapping “Social Responsibility” in Science ’, Journal of Responsible Innovation , 1 : 31 – 50 .
Hartmann I. and Neidhardt F. ( 1990 ) ‘ Peer Review at the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft ’, Scientometrics , 19 : 419 – 25 .
Hirschauer S. ( 2010 ) ‘ Editorial Judgments: A Praxeology of “Voting” in Peer Review ’, Social Studies of Science , 40 : 71 – 103 .
Hughes A. and Kitson M. ( 2012 ) ‘ Pathways to Impact and the Strategic Role of Universities: New Evidence on the Breadth and Depth of University Knowledge Exchange in the UK and the Factors Constraining Its Development ’, Cambridge Journal of Economics , 36 : 723 – 50 .
Huutoniemi K. ( 2012 ) ‘ Communicating and Compromising on Disciplinary Expertise in the Peer Review of Research Proposals ’, Social Studies of Science , 42 : 897 – 921 .
Jasanoff S. ( 2011 ) ‘ Constitutional Moments in Governing Science and Technology ’, Science and Engineering Ethics , 17 : 621 – 38 .
Kolarz P. , Arnold E. , Farla K. , et al. ( 2016 ) Evaluation of the ESRC Transformative Research Scheme . Brighton : Technopolis Group .
Lamont M. ( 2009 ) How Professors Think : Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment . Cambridge : Harvard University Press .
Lamont M. Guetzkow J. ( 2016 ) ‘How Quality Is Recognized by Peer Review Panels: The Case of the Humanities’, in M. Ochsner , S. E. Hug , and H.-D. Daniel (eds) Research Assessment in the Humanities , pp. 31 – 41 . Cham : Springer International Publishing .
Lamont M. Huutoniemi K. ( 2011 ) ‘Comparing Customary Rules of Fairness: Evaluative Practices in Various Types of Peer Review Panels’, in C. Charles G. Neil and L. Michèle (eds) Social Knowledge in the Making , pp. 209–32. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press .
Langfeldt L. ( 2001 ) ‘ The Decision-making Constraints and Processes of Grant Peer Review, and Their Effects on the Review Outcome ’, Social Studies of Science , 31 : 820 – 41 .
——— ( 2006 ) ‘ The Policy Challenges of Peer Review: Managing Bias, Conflict of Interests and Interdisciplinary Assessments ’, Research Evaluation , 15 : 31 – 41 .
Lee C. J. , Sugimoto C. R. , Zhang G. , et al. ( 2013 ) ‘ Bias in Peer Review ’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 64 : 2 – 17 .
Liu F. Maitlis S. ( 2010 ) ‘Nonparticipant Observation’, in A. J. Mills , G. Durepos , and E. Wiebe (eds) Encyclopedia of Case Study Research , pp. 609 – 11 . Los Angeles : SAGE .
Luo J. , Ma L. , and Shankar K. ( 2021 ) ‘ Does the Inclusion of Non-academix Reviewers Make Any Difference for Grant Impact Panels? ’, Science & Public Policy , 48 : 763 – 75 .
Luukkonen T. ( 2012 ) ‘ Conservatism and Risk-taking in Peer Review: Emerging ERC Practices ’, Research Evaluation , 21 : 48 – 60 .
Macleod M. R. , Michie S. , Roberts I. , et al. ( 2014 ) ‘ Biomedical Research: Increasing Value, Reducing Waste ’, The Lancet , 383 : 101 – 4 .
Meijer I. M. ( 2012 ) ‘ Societal Returns of Scientific Research. How Can We Measure It? ’, Leiden : Center for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University .
Merton R. K. ( 1968 ) Social Theory and Social Structure , Enlarged edn. [Nachdr.] . New York : The Free Press .
Moher D. , Naudet F. , Cristea I. A. , et al. ( 2018 ) ‘ Assessing Scientists for Hiring, Promotion, And Tenure ’, PLoS Biology , 16 : e2004089.
Olbrecht M. and Bornmann L. ( 2010 ) ‘ Panel Peer Review of Grant Applications: What Do We Know from Research in Social Psychology on Judgment and Decision-making in Groups? ’, Research Evaluation , 19 : 293 – 304 .
Patiëntenfederatie Nederland ( n.d. ) Ervaringsdeskundigen Referentenpanel < https://www.patientenfederatie.nl/zet-je-ervaring-in/lid-worden-van-ons-referentenpanel > accessed 18 Sept 2022.
Pier E. L. , M. B. , Filut A. , et al. ( 2018 ) ‘ Low Agreement among Reviewers Evaluating the Same NIH Grant Applications ’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115 : 2952 – 7 .
Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds ( n.d. ) Gebruikerscommissie < https://www.spierfonds.nl/wie-wij-zijn/gebruikerscommissie > accessed 18 Sep 2022 .
( 2020 ) Private Non-profit Financiering van Onderzoek in Nederland < https://www.rathenau.nl/nl/wetenschap-cijfers/geld/wat-geeft-nederland-uit-aan-rd/private-non-profit-financiering-van#:∼:text=R%26D%20in%20Nederland%20wordt%20gefinancierd,aan%20wetenschappelijk%20onderzoek%20in%20Nederland > accessed 6 Mar 2022 .
Reneman R. S. , Breimer M. L. , Simoons J. , et al. ( 2010 ) ‘ De toekomst van het cardiovasculaire onderzoek in Nederland. Sturing op synergie en impact ’, Den Haag : Nederlandse Hartstichting .
Reed M. S. , Ferré M. , Marin-Ortega J. , et al. ( 2021 ) ‘ Evaluating Impact from Research: A Methodological Framework ’, Research Policy , 50 : 104147.
Reijmerink W. and Oortwijn W. ( 2017 ) ‘ Bevorderen van Verantwoorde Onderzoekspraktijken Door ZonMw ’, Beleidsonderzoek Online. accessed 6 Mar 2022.
Reijmerink W. , Vianen G. , Bink M. , et al. ( 2020 ) ‘ Ensuring Value in Health Research by Funders’ Implementation of EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines: The Case of ZonMw ’, Berlin : REWARD|EQUATOR .
Reinhart M. ( 2010 ) ‘ Peer Review Practices: A Content Analysis of External Reviews in Science Funding ’, Research Evaluation , 19 : 317 – 31 .
Reinhart M. and Schendzielorz C. ( 2021 ) Trends in Peer Review . SocArXiv . < https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/nzsp5 > accessed 29 Aug 2022.
Roumbanis L. ( 2017 ) ‘ Academic Judgments under Uncertainty: A Study of Collective Anchoring Effects in Swedish Research Council Panel Groups ’, Social Studies of Science , 47 : 95 – 116 .
——— ( 2021a ) ‘ Disagreement and Agonistic Chance in Peer Review ’, Science, Technology & Human Values , 47 : 1302 – 33 .
——— ( 2021b ) ‘ The Oracles of Science: On Grant Peer Review and Competitive Funding ’, Social Science Information , 60 : 356 – 62 .
( 2019 ) ‘ Ruimte voor ieders talent (Position Paper) ’, Den Haag : VSNU, NFU, KNAW, NWO en ZonMw . < https://www.universiteitenvannederland.nl/recognitionandrewards/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Position-paper-Ruimte-voor-ieders-talent.pdf >.
( 2013 ) San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment . The Declaration . < https://sfdora.org > accessed 2 Jan 2022 .
Sarewitz D. and Pielke R. A. Jr. ( 2007 ) ‘ The Neglected Heart of Science Policy: Reconciling Supply of and Demand for Science ’, Environmental Science & Policy , 10 : 5 – 16 .
Scholten W. , Van Drooge L. , and Diederen P. ( 2018 ) Excellent Is Niet Gewoon. Dertig Jaar Focus op Excellentie in het Nederlandse Wetenschapsbeleid . The Hague : Rathenau Instituut .
Shapin S. ( 2008 ) The Scientific Life : A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation . Chicago : University of Chicago press .
Spaapen J. and Van Drooge L. ( 2011 ) ‘ Introducing “Productive Interactions” in Social Impact Assessment ’, Research Evaluation , 20 : 211 – 8 .
Travis G. D. L. and Collins H. M. ( 1991 ) ‘ New Light on Old Boys: Cognitive and Institutional Particularism in the Peer Review System ’, Science, Technology & Human Values , 16 : 322 – 41 .
Van Arensbergen P. and Van den Besselaar P. ( 2012 ) ‘ The Selection of Scientific Talent in the Allocation of Research Grants ’, Higher Education Policy , 25 : 381 – 405 .
Van Arensbergen P. , Van der Weijden I. , and Van den Besselaar P. V. D. ( 2014a ) ‘ The Selection of Talent as a Group Process: A Literature Review on the Social Dynamics of Decision Making in Grant Panels ’, Research Evaluation , 23 : 298 – 311 .
—— ( 2014b ) ‘ Different Views on Scholarly Talent: What Are the Talents We Are Looking for in Science? ’, Research Evaluation , 23 : 273 – 84 .
Van den Brink , G. , Scholten , W. , and Jansen , T. , eds ( 2016 ) Goed Werk voor Academici . Culemborg : Stichting Beroepseer .
Weingart P. ( 1999 ) ‘ Scientific Expertise and Political Accountability: Paradoxes of Science in Politics ’, Science & Public Policy , 26 : 151 – 61 .
Wessely S. ( 1998 ) ‘ Peer Review of Grant Applications: What Do We Know? ’, The Lancet , 352 : 301 – 5 .
Month: | Total Views: |
---|---|
April 2023 | 723 |
May 2023 | 266 |
June 2023 | 152 |
July 2023 | 130 |
August 2023 | 355 |
September 2023 | 189 |
October 2023 | 198 |
November 2023 | 181 |
December 2023 | 153 |
January 2024 | 197 |
February 2024 | 222 |
March 2024 | 227 |
April 2024 | 218 |
May 2024 | 229 |
June 2024 | 134 |
July 2024 | 123 |
August 2024 | 87 |
Citing articles via.
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide
Sign In or Create an Account
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
Published on October 12, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on November 21, 2023.
A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.
The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:
Literature review.
While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organized and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.
Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research proposals.
Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .
In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.
Show your reader why your project is interesting, original, and important. | |
Demonstrate your comfort and familiarity with your field. Show that you understand the current state of research on your topic. | |
Make a case for your . Demonstrate that you have carefully thought about the data, tools, and procedures necessary to conduct your research. | |
Confirm that your project is feasible within the timeline of your program or funding deadline. |
The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.
One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.
Download our research proposal template
Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.
Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:
The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.
Your introduction should:
To guide your introduction , include information about:
As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.
In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:
Following the literature review, restate your main objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.
? or ? , , or research design? | |
, )? ? | |
, , , )? | |
? |
To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasize again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.
For example, your results might have implications for:
Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .
Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.
Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.
Download our research schedule template
Research phase | Objectives | Deadline |
---|---|---|
1. Background research and literature review | 20th January | |
2. Research design planning | and data analysis methods | 13th February |
3. Data collection and preparation | with selected participants and code interviews | 24th March |
4. Data analysis | of interview transcripts | 22nd April |
5. Writing | 17th June | |
6. Revision | final work | 28th July |
If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.
Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:
To determine your budget, think about:
If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
Methodology
Statistics
Research bias
Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement .
Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.
I will compare …
A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.
Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.
A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.
A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.
A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.
All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.
Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.
Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.
The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.
McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, November 21). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 20, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-proposal/
Other students also liked, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.
✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts
Molecular Foundry
Project goals and significance (20 points).
Proposal question: Describe the scientific or technological motivation, long-term goals, and significance of your project in the context of your field of study. Describe your immediate goal in the context of a one-year Molecular Foundry User Project.
Review criteria: To what extent is the proposed research expected to significantly advance the scientific or technological field? How likely is the proposed work to produce high-quality publications?
Proposal question: Describe your project plan, indicating what work will be done at your home institution and what in the Foundry Facilities requested in “Resource Request”. Describe how each of these pieces of work contributes to the immediate goal identified in “Project Goals and Significance”. Describe the expected timeline of your project, including an estimate of the time required for each piece of work.
Review criteria: Is the experimental plan achievable at the Foundry within the proposed project term (not to exceed one year for a Standard Proposal)? How will the results obtained at the Foundry complement and propel follow-up research at the user’s home institution?
Proposal question: Describe how Foundry capabilities and expertise are needed to realize the immediate goal identified in “Project Goals and Significance”. Identify the lead facility and any support facilities requested, and give a short description of the intended work at each.
Review criteria: Is the request for Foundry resources well justified? To what extent will the proposed work take advantage of the unique capabilities or combinations of capabilities/expertise (either within a single facility, or across the Foundry as a whole)?
Proposal question: Describe the current level of expertise of each researcher in relation to the proposed work. For researchers expected to do hands-on work at the Foundry, be explicit about their level of training or experience on the requested instruments and capabilities.
Review criteria: Are the users adequately prepared for efficient use of limited Foundry resources? How do the users’ track records of innovative, technically demanding research inform the likelihood of success of the proposed project?
Next Section: 7. Proposal Tips and Examples
Was this page useful?
By Lilian Nassi-Calò
Photo: Oliver Tacke .
The peer review of research proposals (grants) aims to judge the merit of projects and researchers and enable the best to be contemplated. The high number of candidates and proposals, however, has caused saturation of the reviewers, who find themselves immersed in increasing numbers of projects, not knowing the best way to assess them.
In a post previously published in this blog, the possibility of making reviews on grant proposals openly available has been discussed, as a way to help researchers devise better proposals, while allowing public recognition of referees and helping to prevent fraud in the appraisal process. This alternative comes from the successful experience of journals which made peer-reviewers comments openly available along with the published article.
Recently, Ewan Birney, director of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory’s European Bioinformatics Institute at Hinxton, UK, asked his Twitter followers for practical suggestions on how to identify the best candidates from hundreds of research grants submissions received by his institution. To his surprise, the scientific community responded enthusiastically with many suggestions which, in turn, led to other comments on Twitter. The experience was reported in Nature 1 , which is also receiving comments on its page.
Birney 2 started the debate on Twitter asking about a proxy for quality other than the journal title to assess the candidates’ competence, whose articles combined added up to about 2,500 overall. Yoav Gilad 3 , a geneticist at the University of Chicago, IL, US, advised him to read the 2,500 abstracts or the papers, even if it meant including more referees in the assessment process. Birney said that he considered it not feasible, although correct. Birney thinks, like many, that the journal’s title or its Impact Factor (IF) does not necessarily reflect the individual quality of the papers. Moreover, his task is even more difficult, because it includes assessing proposals that do not fall exactly within his area of expertise. “Of course, even if I was using journal as proxy here it wouldn’t help me – everyone here has published ‘well’”.
The discussion continues on Twitter with a suggestion from Stephen Curry 4 , a structural biologist at the Imperial College in London about asking candidates to identify their four most relevant publications and justify their choices in a single page report. Richard Sever 5 , co-founder of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) bioRxiv biomedical articles’ repository and assistant-director of CSHL Press considered it a good idea, pointing out, however, that this method could actually select candidates good at writing one page summaries.
The biggest concern, according to Birney, in using citation based metrics, as suggested by many researchers, lies in the fact that they vary considerably between disciplines and may not be comparable in a heterogeneous sample. Hugo Hilton 6 , an immunologist at the University of Stanford at CA, US, expressed his concern, as a candidate, that the selection processes are subject to not totally clear criteria and classic biases as the prestige of journals where applicants publish. It is worth, at this point, mentioning the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) of 2012 7 , in which members of the American Society for Cell Biology pledged not to use the IF to evaluate researchers in grant proposals, career promotions and hiring, precisely to avoid distortions. Up to now the Declaration was signed by over 150 prominent scientists and 80 academic organizations.
Birney says that the referees should have a certain degree of autonomy to assess the proposals and there is no problem if all of them do not follow exactly the same procedures in their assessments. “I would prefer subjective but unbiased opinions, and five of them with different criteria than trying to unify the criteria so we all agree with the same answers.” However, he points out, transparency in the process is essential.
Despite being aware of the problems in using journals prestige as a proxy for quality, Birney believes that its use is unavoidable due to the large volume of proposals and candidates. He also advises candidates to highlight their achievements clearly in the proposal, rather than just pinpoint journal titles from their publications list.
The paper on Nature received several comments suggesting ways to speed up the evaluation process and come up with shortlists. It is also possible to registered users to submit their views on the topic 8 . Join the discussion you too!
1. CHAWLA, D.S. How to judge scientists’ strengths. Nature . 2015, volº 527, nº 279. DOI: 10.1038/527279f
2. Ewan Birney: http://twitter.com/ewanbirney
3. Yoav Gilad: http://twitter.com/Y_Gilad
4. Stephen Curry: http://twitter.com/Stephen_Curry
5. Richard Sever: http://twitter.com/cshperspectives
6. Hugo Hilton: http://twitter.com/Hilton_HG
7. SCIENTIFIC ELECTRONIC LIBRARY ONLINE. Declaration recommends eliminate the use of Impact factor for research evaluation . SciELO in Perspective. [viewed 22 November 2015]. Available from: http://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/07/16/declaration-recommends-eliminate-the-use-of-impact-factor-for-research-evaluation/
8. < http://www.nature.com/foxtrot/svc/login?type=commenting >
CHAWLA, D.S. How to judge scientists’ strengths. Nature . 2015, volº 527, nº 279. DOI: 10.1038/527279f
MALHOTRA, V. and MARDER, E. Peer review: The pleasure of publishing – originally published in the journal eLife in January/2015 . SciELO in Perspective. [viewed 21 November 2015]. Available from: http://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/05/11/peer-review-the-pleasure-of-publishing-originally-published-in-the-journal-elife-in-january2015/
SCIENTIFIC ELECTRONIC LIBRARY ONLINE. Could grant proposal reviews be made available openly?. SciELO in Perspective. [viewed 21 November 2015]. Available from: http://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/03/20/could-grant-proposal-reviews-be-made-available-openly/
SCIENTIFIC ELECTRONIC LIBRARY ONLINE. Declaration recommends eliminate the use of Impact factor for research evaluation . SciELO in Perspective. [viewed 22 November 2015]. Available from: http://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/07/16/declaration-recommends-eliminate-the-use-of-impact-factor-for-research-evaluation/
SCIENTIFIC ELECTRONIC LIBRARY ONLINE. Paper proposes four pillars for scholarly communication to favor the speed and the quality of science . SciELO in Perspective. [viewed 21 November 2015]. Available from: http://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/07/31/paper-proposes-four-pillars-for-scholarly-communication-to-favor-the-speed-and-the-quality-of-science/
SCIENTIFIC ELECTRONIC LIBRARY ONLINE. Peer-review as a research topic in its own right . SciELO in Perspective. [viewed 21 November 2015]. Available from: http://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/04/24/peer-review-as-a-research-topic-in-its-own-right/
SCIENTIFIC ELECTRONIC LIBRARY ONLINE. Scientometrics of peer-reviewers – will they be finally recognized? . SciELO in Perspective. [viewed 21 November 2015]. Available from: http://blog.scielo.org/en/2014/05/14/scientometrics-of-peer-reviewers-will-they-be-finally-recognized/
bioRxiv – < http://biorxiv.org/ >
San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment – < http://am.ascb.org/dora/ >
Lilian Nassi-Calò studied chemistry at Instituto de Química – USP, holds a doctorate in Biochemistry by the same institution and a post-doctorate as an Alexander von Humboldt fellow in Wuerzburg, Germany. After her studies, she was a professor and researcher at IQ-USP. She also worked as an industrial chemist and presently she is Coordinator of Scientific Communication at BIREME/PAHO/WHO and a collaborator of SciELO.
Translated from the original in portuguese by Lilian Nassi-Calò.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
SciELO Network
The posts are of the authors responsibility and don't necessarily convey the opinions of the SciELO Program.
SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online FAPESP - CAPES - CNPq - BIREME - FapUNIFESP http://www.scielo.org [email protected]
Home News Analysis Interviews Documents Newsletter About
Proposal Assessment
If this proposal has been submitted to a specific scheme then the research council will provide additional information in the Instructions to Reviewer section
- EPSRC specific
- ESRC specific
- MRC specific
- NC3Rs specific
- STFC specific
EPSRC - Specific Requirements:
Scheme Specific Guidance:
This proposal has been submitted against a specific scheme/call, which will have explicit aims and objectives and which will have set out additional assessment criteria relating to meeting these. You should ensure you have read the scheme guidance and/or call document and should comment here on how well the proposal meets the aims of the call and the extent to which it addresses all the specific criteria.
EPSRC reviewer guidance and the specific assessment criteria for each scheme is available on the EPSRC website at https://www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/assessmentprocess/review/ .
If the proposal has been submitted in response to a published call, you are asked to read that call document and to make your assessment of the proposal within the context of the aims, objectives and specific assessment criteria for that call. The call document can be found on the EPSRC Website following this link: http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/calls/ .
Back to top
ESRC - Specific Requirements
ESRC Academic Assessment guidance
Reviewer scoring scale
ESRC uses a numerical reviewer’s scoring scale from 1 to 6. This scale is used for all ESRC schemes where proposals are sent to external peer reviewers and then to a panel meeting for a final funding recommendation; this includes Research Grant proposals. Please note that proposals to fast-track calls are assessed using the Panel Introducer scoring scale, from 1-10.
Please also be aware that for Research Grant proposals we allow an applicant (PI) response to reviewers’ comments.
For your overall score, please use the following:
* These descriptions refer solely to scientific quality for simplicity. However, your score should take into account all the assessment criteria for the specific scheme, as detailed below.
If you feel unable to assess a proposal against a particular criterion, you can also indicate this by ticking ‘Unable to assess’ against that criterion on the reviewer form (effectively score 0).
Detailed notes on Academic Reviewer Guidance covering Assessment Criteria can be located here: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding/guidance-for-peer-reviewers/
ESRC User Assessment Guidance
Reviewer scoring scales
ESRC uses a numerical reviewer’s scoring scale from 1 to 6. This scale is now used for all ESRC schemes where proposals are sent to external peer reviewers and then to a panel meeting for a final funding recommendation; this includes Research Grant proposals. Please note that proposals to fast-track calls are assessed using the Panel Introducer scoring scale, from 1-10.
|
|
High (equivalent to score 6) | Research of high importance to users of research, i.e., of such novelty or timeliness and promise that a significant contribution to policy or practice is likely. |
Worthy (equivalent to score 4) | Research that will add to understanding and is worthy of support but which may not be of such relevance or urgency as to have a significant influence on policy or practice. |
Reject (equivalent to score 2) | Research which is flawed in its proposed contribution to policy or practice or is repetitious of other work. |
Detailed comments in support of these scores should be provided in the free text overall assessment section.
If you wish to comment on scientific quality, please use the above ‘Academic’ scoring table guide.
Detailed notes on User Reviewer Guidance covering Assessment Criteria can be located here: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding/guidance-for-peer-reviewers/
B ack to top
MRC – Specific Requirements
Proposal Assessment (criteria)
Reviews are based around three core criteria:
Importance: how important are the questions, or gaps in knowledge, that are being addressed?
Scientific potential: what are the prospects for good scientific progress?
Resources requested: are the funds requested essential for the work, and do the importance and scientific potential justify funding on the scale requested?
We also ask reviewers to consider other aspects of the research, such as the potential impact, ethical issues, data management plans, appropriate use of animals, the research environment and more. Detailed criteria for the different schemes we operate can be found in the Reviewers Handbook, along with a series of questions that you should consider when preparing your review.
For further guidance for peer reviewers please see the MRC website by selecting: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/funding/peer-review/guidance-for-peer-reviewers/
NC3Rs - Specific Requirements:
ALL comments in this section will be sent, unedited, to the applicant. Your identity will not be revealed.
Scientific Potential
Please consider the following:
What are the prospects for good scientific progress?
Has the host Research Organisation demonstrated a commitment to supporting the work?
Is there a firm foundation to take the work forward?
Are collaborators well chosen?
Research Plans
Please comment on:
How innovative is the proposal? To your knowledge, is the same or similar work being undertaken elsewhere?
Are the experimental plans realistic and feasible, given the aims of the research and the resources?
Are the methods and study designs appropriate? Are sufficient details given?
If appropriate, is there suitable preliminary data included? Note: this may be limited for the pilot study grant scheme.
What are the scientific, technical or organisational challenges and have the applicants identified plans to tackle them?
In the case of applications for Pilot Study grants how will the work be developed and how feasible are the subsequent proposals?
Is information provided on what will be the next steps for evaluation, validation and implementation?
With regard to animal work
- Has information been provided on care, husbandry and refinements to procedures?
- Has the number of animals been minimised?
Ethics and Research Governance of the proposal
In completing this section please consider the following:
Is the work ethically acceptable?
Are there any ethical issues that need separate consideration?
Are the ethical review and research governance arrangements clear and acceptable?
Where applicable, have replacement, refinement and reduction been applied to the proposed work?
Risks of research misuse
Please consider if there are any ethical, safety or security issues, or other potential adverse consequences, associated with the proposed research.
Are there any tangible risks that the research would generate outcomes that could be misused for harmful purposes?
Are there any actions which could lead to harm to humans, animals or the environment - including terrorist misuse?
If such issues exist, have these been addressed satisfactorily in the proposal?
Relevance to NC3Rs Strategy
Practical advances in applying the 3Rs to animal research are important in order to ensure high-quality, reproducible and humane science; and to address public concerns regarding the use of animals. One of the key aims of the NC3Rs is to promote the development of new research approaches, which have a reduced reliance on the use of animals and/or lead to improved animal welfare. The Centre does this partly through funding high quality research which advances knowledge in each of the 3Rs.
Please comment on the relevance of the proposal to the NC3Rs strategy.
Is the relevance to the NC3Rs priorities clearly and convincingly explained?
Have the applicants provided a clear assessment of the predicted advances in the 3Rs?
Do you agree with this assessment?
STFC - Specific Requirements:
For calls against the STFC Standard and Project Peer Review Panel scheme please answer the questions on Strengths, Weaknesses, and Resources. The Impact section is only relevant to PPRP.
Further guidance is available below and STFC assessment criteria can be found on the documents to review helptext page
For Astronomy Grants Panel proposals it is highly likely that you will be asked to comment on several projects within the proposal. It is essential that the reviewer clearly identifies each project separately when providing comments.
For strengths and weaknesses please include your thoughts on the proposal with emphasis on:
Please also provide your thoughts on:
For Resources comment on the justification for the level of resources requested and their appropriateness to deliver the stated aims. Please state whether the resources requested have been justified and are appropriate (including facility requests such as computing etc. Or what modifications you would recommend). Please pay particular attention to staffing and equipment.
For the questions on Impact , please see the on screen guidance within the form.
IPS/Follow on Fund and CLASP proposals should be assessed making sure there is evidence of knowledge exchange that will stimulate technology exploitation through the identified route to market. There are three main criteria, Economic Impact, Social Impact and Overall quality which are defined below:
Economic Impact:
Social Impact:
Overall Quality:
*UKRI recognises that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused major interruptions and disruptions across our communities and are committed to ensuring that individual applicants and their wider team, including partners and networks, are not penalised for any disruption to their career(s) such as breaks and delays, disruptive working patterns and conditions, the loss of on-going work, and role changes that may have been caused by the pandemic.
When undertaking your assessment of the research project, you should consider the unequal impacts of the impact that COVID-19 related disruption might have had on the track record and career development of those individuals included in the proposal, and you should focus on the capability of the applicant and their wider team to deliver the research they are proposing.
** UKRI acknowledges that it is a challenge for applicants to determine the future impacts of COVID-19 while the pandemic continues to evolve. Applicants have been advised that their applications should be based on the information available at the point of submission and, if applicable, the known application specific impacts of COVID-19 should be accounted for. Where known impacts have occurred, these should have been highlighted in the application, including the assumptions/information at the point of submission. Applicants were not required to include contingency plans for the potential impacts of COVID-19. Requests for travel both domestically and internationally could be included in accordance to the relevant scheme guidelines, noting the above advice.
When undertaking your assessment of the research project you should assess the project as written, noting that any changes that the project might require in the future, which arise from the COVID-19 pandemic, will be resolved as a post-award issue by UKRI if the project is successful. Potential complications related to COVID-19 should not affect your assessment or the score you give the project
Search This Site
When is Formal Review Required?
Student & Campus Life research projects that will use substantial resources of the Cornell community must be formally reviewed by the committee before they can be initiated. At a minimum, this includes research that draws participants from a major institutional data base, for example, those maintained by the University Registrar; Office of the Dean of Students; Fraternity, Sorority and Independent Living; and Class Councils. Regardless of how potential participants are to be identified, research that meets the following criteria will also require formal review by the committee:
Conversely, research projects that are very limited in scope, and research that is conducted exclusively for program evaluation purposes (i.e., research that examines the program-related experiences of students who participate in a specific program or event) will generally be exempt from formal review by the committee.
Submitting a Proposal for Formal Review
The committee meets monthly during the fall, winter and spring semesters to formally review research proposals and conduct related business. At least eight weeks before the anticipated launch date of the project, researchers should submit a SCLRG research proposal form to Leslie Meyerhoff or Marne Einarson . The proposal form asks for information about the purpose and proposed design of the study, as well as draft versions of data collection instruments. Samples of completed research proposals are available here and here .
The following criteria will be used by the committee to evaluate research proposals:
Based on their evaluation of the research proposal, the committee may decide to:
IRB Approval
If research results will not be used exclusively for internal purposes (e.g., they will be presented or published beyond Cornell; or used for an undergraduate honors thesis, master’s thesis or doctoral dissertation), researchers may also be required to obtain approval from Cornell’s Institutional Review Board for Human Participants (IRB). IRB approval should be sought after the proposal has been reviewed by the SAS Research Group. The committee should subsequently be informed of the decision of the IRB.
© 2024 Cornell University
If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an alternate format, contact [email protected] for assistance.
Home » How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]
Table of Contents
Writing a Research proposal involves several steps to ensure a well-structured and comprehensive document. Here is an explanation of each step:
4. Literature Review:
The format of a research proposal may vary depending on the specific requirements of the institution or funding agency. However, the following is a commonly used format for a research proposal:
1. Title Page:
2. Abstract:
3. Introduction:
5. Research Objectives:
6. Methodology:
7. Timeline:
8. Resources:
9. Ethical Considerations:
10. Expected Outcomes and Significance:
11. References:
12. Appendices:
Here’s a template for a research proposal:
1. Introduction:
2. Literature Review:
3. Research Objectives:
4. Methodology:
5. Timeline:
6. Resources:
7. Ethical Considerations:
8. Expected Outcomes and Significance:
9. References:
10. Appendices:
Title: The Impact of Online Education on Student Learning Outcomes: A Comparative Study
1. Introduction
Online education has gained significant prominence in recent years, especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes by comparing them with traditional face-to-face instruction. The study will explore various aspects of online education, such as instructional methods, student engagement, and academic performance, to provide insights into the effectiveness of online learning.
2. Objectives
The main objectives of this research are as follows:
3. Methodology
3.1 Study Design
This research will utilize a mixed-methods approach to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. The study will include the following components:
3.2 Participants
The research will involve undergraduate students from two universities, one offering online education and the other providing face-to-face instruction. A total of 500 students (250 from each university) will be selected randomly to participate in the study.
3.3 Data Collection
The research will employ the following data collection methods:
3.4 Data Analysis
Quantitative data will be analyzed using statistical software, employing descriptive statistics, t-tests, and regression analysis. Qualitative data will be transcribed, coded, and analyzed thematically to identify recurring patterns and themes.
4. Ethical Considerations
The study will adhere to ethical guidelines, ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of participants. Informed consent will be obtained, and participants will have the right to withdraw from the study at any time.
5. Significance and Expected Outcomes
This research will contribute to the existing literature by providing empirical evidence on the impact of online education on student learning outcomes. The findings will help educational institutions and policymakers make informed decisions about incorporating online learning methods and improving the quality of online education. Moreover, the study will identify potential challenges and opportunities related to online education and offer recommendations for enhancing student engagement and overall learning outcomes.
6. Timeline
The proposed research will be conducted over a period of 12 months, including data collection, analysis, and report writing.
The estimated budget for this research includes expenses related to data collection, software licenses, participant compensation, and research assistance. A detailed budget breakdown will be provided in the final research plan.
8. Conclusion
This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes through a comparative study with traditional face-to-face instruction. By exploring various dimensions of online education, this research will provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and challenges associated with online learning. The findings will contribute to the ongoing discourse on educational practices and help shape future strategies for maximizing student learning outcomes in online education settings.
Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer
Stanford Research Development Office
Created: 10/06/22
Updated: 08/19/24
More resources will be added as we continue to develop this page. (Most recent content update: July 2, 2024)
The following proposal sections, listed in alphabetical order, are commonly required by a variety of funders. For each, we have provided resources to assist in preparing content; some have been developed by RDO, while others are curated from trusted internal and external sources.
The resources below are intended to be a starting point. Solicitations will often specify unique requirements for each of these sections. Always check the requirements from your specific agency and call.
These documents provide evidence of an individual's qualifications for the role played in a proposed project and are generally requested in specific formats based on sponsor. For most STEM sponsors, RDO recommends using SciEnCV for generating and saving your biosketch as it will be easier to update and the interface allows reformatting for use in proposals for different sponsors.
Broader Impacts requirements generally ask for the answer to the question "how does your research benefit society?" This term and requirement are commonly associated with NSF, but other agencies can also have similar requirements. The resources below help to describe the breadth of what broader impacts can be as well as give advice on how to develop a vision and craft a compelling story about the broader impacts of your work.
Budgets are an integral part of proposals that have a direct effect on how monies can be used, are tracked, and are audited in the post award period.
Often sponsors require a list of collaborators and other affiliates in a form that allows the agency to ensure that no conflicts exist in the process of selecting reviewers or to check for PI conflict of interest in various areas. These can be in the form of "COA", "Collaborator", "COI" or other documents. Be sure to check and follow your sponsor's guidelines for these documents; many provide their own specific required templates.
Many funding agencies will require a data management plan (DMP) as part of a proposal. The DMP describes the types of data you expect to collect, how they will be managed, and how access and preservation will be accomplished over time.
Sponsors sometimes require demonstration that a project team will make specific efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. These requirements vary by sponsor and it is important to understand the level at which the activities are to take place. For example, does the sponsor want to see activities that are community-focused or targeted to the researchers and staff you will have on the project? In any case, a strong diversity plan also includes evaluation strategies and metrics for success.
Often addressed in multiple sections of a proposal, evaluation plans are an important component of understanding whether a project or strategy is effective and successful. Developing robust evaluation plans at the proposal stage can demonstrate to the reviewers and funders that you have thought about what "success" means and how you will be certain you will achieve it or adjust practices to course correct along the way. These are commonly requested for educational activities, outreach plans, workforce development strategies, and management plans.
Funding agencies may request that cost sharing, details on facilities, equipment, and other resources available to the proposal team, and other forms of institutional support be included with proposals. The scope and format of these requirements will depend on the specific funding opportunity or call. RDO recommends starting early in your proposal development process and working in collaboration with department or school leadership to identify and request appropriate institutional support for your proposal.
Management plans are common elements of large collaborative or center grants. This section is intended to demonstrate to reviewers how teams will work together to accomplish the various goals of a project. Some plans also require detailed administrative information as well as plans for evaluation of project activities (see section on Evaluation Plans above).
Postdoctoral mentoring plans (PMPs) are often required in STEM-focused proposals where a postdoctoral researcher's involvement is indicated. These serve as roadmaps for both mentor and mentee to navigate the key aspects of mentorship and professional development of postdocs. It's best to avoid using a boilerplate approach and instead tailor the Plan to the specific program you are proposing, institution you are with, and/or postdoc(s) to be mentored.
Sponsors sometimes request information on protocols and plans related to safety in various context including in the laboratory, at field sites, or any off-campus work environment. The university has policies and procedures related to these topics which can be found in addition to other resources linked below.
The criteria against which applications should be assessed directly relates to the core responsive mode application questions :
Some opportunities will have additional questions that reflect their disciplinary specific requirements. Further detail on what assessors should be looking for is available on the relevant funding opportunity page under the ‘how to apply’ section.
The Medical Research Council (MRC) also requires sex to be justified in the experimental design of grant applications involving animals, and human and animal tissues and cells, as part of the sex in experimental design requirement .
MRC’s policy on embedding diversity in research design will apply to applications involving human participants, samples or data, submitted to opportunity deadlines after 1 September 2023.
When undertaking your assessment of the research, you should consider the unequal impacts that COVID-19 -related disruption described by the applicants might have had on the research, track record and career development of those individuals included in the application.
Last updated: 11 April 2024
This is the website for UKRI: our seven research councils, Research England and Innovate UK. Let us know if you have feedback or would like to help improve our online products and services .
COMMENTS
§ 3406.20 Evaluation criteria for research proposals. The maximum score a research proposal can receive is 150 points. Unless otherwise stated in the annual solicitation published in the Federal Register, the peer review panel will consider the following criteria and weights to evaluate proposals submitted:
10. General Scholarship. Logical and coherent organization. Breakdown into effective systems of headings. Evidence of insight into nature of problem. Imagination in design of study in interpretation of results. Evidence of ad~uate grasp of research and statistical tools. Display of scientific attitudes: report.
To assess research proposals, funders rely on the services of peer experts to review the thousands or perhaps millions of research proposals seeking funding each year. While often associated with scholarly publishing, peer review also includes the ex ante assessment of research grant and fellowship applications (Abdoul et al. 2012). Peer review ...
Evaluation Criteria for Research Proposal Name: Section 1 Introduction Introduces reader to problem 1 0 Provides evidence that substantiates problem's existence 2 1 0 ... Each research study summarized addresses: sample, methods, results 5 4 3 2 1 0 Transitions are used to introduce each subheading 2 1 0 Five or more studies are reviewed 5 4 3 ...
Research proposal examples. Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We've included a few for you below. Example research proposal #1: "A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management" Example research proposal #2: "Medical Students as Mediators of ...
Scholars who have a thorough awareness of the essential components of research proposal preparation, assessment criteria, and recommended practices are better prepared to navigate the complicated ...
Proposal Evaluation Criteria. Proposal Evaluation Criteria. d. reative ProjectsR. search1. Intellectual merit Does the proposal have a clear and specific res. arch question/artistic goal? Has the student demonstrated engagement with schol.
c excellence. Research evaluation is therefore at the heart of its operations. Recently, the Scientific Council1 of the ERC has introduced changes in the evaluation processes and evaluation forms for the 2024 calls for research proposals2, as describ. d in the ERC 'Work Programme 2024' and the associated guidance documents3. This report ...
The purpose of the research proposal (its job, so to speak) is to convince your research supervisor, committee or university that your research is suitable (for the requirements of the degree program) and manageable (given the time and resource constraints you will face). The most important word here is "convince" - in other words, your ...
A research proposal's purpose is to capture the evaluator's attention, demonstrate the study's potential benefits, and prove that it is a logical and consistent approach (Van Ekelenburg, 2010). To ensure that your research proposal contains these elements, there are several aspects to include in your proposal (Al-Riyami, 2008): Title; Abstract
Proposal question: Describe the current level of expertise of each researcher in relation to the proposed work. For researchers expected to do hands-on work at the Foundry, be explicit about their level of training or experience on the requested instruments and capabilities. Review criteria: Are the users adequately prepared for efficient use ...
The peer review of research proposals (grants) aims to judge the merit of projects and researchers and enable the best to be contemplated. The director of an institution in the United Kingdom shared on Twitter his struggle in evaluating the numerous proposals received and started a discussion forum from which ideas and suggestions emerged.
Proposal Assessment (criteria) Reviews are based around three core criteria: Importance: how important are the questions, or gaps in knowledge, that are being addressed? ... When undertaking your assessment of the research project you should assess the project as written, noting that any changes that the project might require in the future ...
Not Applicable. 1. Problem Definition‐Hypothesis: Stated the research problem clearly, provided motivation for undertaking the research. 2. Specific Aims: Provided succinct, clear, logical description of the objectives and plan of action. 3. Background‐ Literature and Previous Work:
The proposal form asks for information about the purpose and proposed design of the study, as well as draft versions of data collection instruments. Samples of completed research proposals are available here and here. The following criteria will be used by the committee to evaluate research proposals:
Depending on the RFP content, proposal submission requirements will vary. Regardless of the proposal submission requirements you include, it is important to put yourself in the shoes of the proposer, and to check that the submission requirements are clear and directly tied to either evaluation criteria, or government legal and policy requirements.
Style: If space allows, provide a clear project title. Structure your text - if allowed use section headings. Present the information in short paragraphs rather than a solid block of text. Write short sentences. If allowed, provide images/charts/diagrams to help break up the text.
11.6 assessment of research proposal The following criteria are used by researchers for assessin g research proposals. Criteria Used for Assessin g Short Research Proposals
procedure for selecting the best proposals must be applied. In this research in progress paper, we present quality criteria for the ex-ante assessment of research proposals from early career researchers in the humanities. Applying a bottom-up approach we base the evaluation criteria on scholars' ratings of quality criteria regarding their
Overview: 8 Research Proposal Killers. The research topic is too broad (or just poorly articulated). The research aims, objectives and questions don't align. The research topic is not well justified. The study has a weak theoretical foundation. The research design is not well articulated well enough. Poor writing and sloppy presentation.
Here is an explanation of each step: 1. Title and Abstract. Choose a concise and descriptive title that reflects the essence of your research. Write an abstract summarizing your research question, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes. It should provide a brief overview of your proposal. 2.
A proposal needs to show how your work fits into what is already known about the topic and what new paradigm will it add to the literature, while specifying the question that the research will answer, establishing its significance, and the implications of the answer. [ 2] The proposal must be capable of convincing the evaluation committee about ...
Budgets are an integral part of proposals that have a direct effect on how monies can be used, are tracked, and are audited in the post award period. Start here: Stanford ORA Budget Resource Page - find templates and helpful links and information including California's partial sales and use tax exemption for research and development equipment
The criteria against which applications should be assessed directly relates to the core responsive mode application questions: vision of the project. approach to the project. capability of the applicant or applicants and the project team to deliver the project. resources requested to do the project. ethical and responsible research and ...