What do reviewers look for in a research proposal? Research Councils’ review criteria Dimitra Koutsantoni Research & Knowledge Transfer Manager

Date Arial Bold 10pt ESRC Review process Stage 1: proposal sent to an average of three referees, depending on the amount requested (one of the nominated academic reviewers, and both (if two are selected) of the nominated non academic users of the research) Stage 2: proposal and referee comments sent to and graded by at least two members of the Board or Panel that is responsible for making a judgement on whether to fund the application (called 'Assessors') Stage 3: proposal forwarded to the most appropriate Board or Panel meeting for a final decision of whether to fund. Stage 4: decision letter sent to applicant

Date Arial Bold 10pt ESRC standard proposals review criteria Academic reviewers:  Originality; potential contribution to knowledge  Research design and methods  Value for Money  Communication strategy and planned outputs Non-academic reviewers:  Likely importance of research to potential users  Timeliness of the outcomes for potential users  Effectiveness of plans for involving potential users and disseminating results to them

Date Arial Bold 10pt EPSRC review process Stage 1: proposal sent to at least four reviewers, including at least one nominated by the investigator. Stage 2: proposal sent to funding prioritisation panels (membership of these panels is drawn from across EPSRC's scientific remit including academics and practitioners) Stage 3: reviewers' reports (made anonymous) will be passed back to the investigator for comment. Stage 4: Heads of Programme decide which proposals will be funded based upon the rank ordered list produced by the panel and the funding available Stage 4: Principal Investigators are notified of the outcome of the panel in writing

Date Arial Bold 10pt EPSRC review criteria  Impact: timeliness; contribution to UK’s world standing; ability to advance research knowledge  Degree of novelty or risk: originality; degree of adventure and potential to produce high return in knowledge advances and/or exploitation; incremental nature of research  People and development: contribution to training and development to highly skilled researchers  Collaboration: with other departments, institutions, business, international  Ability of applicant to deliver the research: skills and experience of team  Planning and Management: timescales; methodology; management of risks; dissemination plans  Resources requested: justification and appropriateness  Potential contribution to Knowledge Transfer: user engagement; transfer of knowledge to business and society; exploitation of research outputs

Date Arial Bold 10pt Why do proposals fail? Analysis of reviewers’ comments on Cass applications An analysis of 51 reviewers’ comments taken from reviewers’ reports sent to 15 unsuccessful applicants from Cass Business School (3 on EPSRC applications and 12 on ESRC applications) dating showed the proposal aspects reviewers found weak/problematic:

Date Arial Bold 10pt Methodology not clearly explained: 31% Limited impact/applicability of research: 22% No end-user engagement/collaboration:14% No innovation in approach:12% Aim not stated:8% Data not described:8% Focus (too narrow or too wide):8% Poor dissemination plan:8% Limited value for money:8% No innovation in method:6% Limited awareness of literature/existing studies:6% No justification of need for the research:6% Non-compliance with scheme specification:6% Lack of theoretical framework:4% Lack of project management skills:2%

Date Arial Bold 10pt What is the message? Reviewers want to see:  Clearly explained and detailed methodology  Research with potential for high impact and applicability  Research that will engage end-users and will generate collaborations with end-users  Research that is innovative

Date Arial Bold 10pt Research Councils Knowledge Transfer schemes Emphasis on knowledge transfer and development of relationships with businesses

Date Arial Bold 10pt ESRC Business Engagement Scheme  Value for money: justification of costs/breakdown of costs  Demonstrable impact/quantification of benefits  Demonstrable commitment from partner organisation  User engagement  Relevance and support of the ESRC strategic and delivery plans

Date Arial Bold 10pt ESRC Capacity Building Clusters Scheme (1)  capability to deliver the portfolio of activities within the cluster package  potential achievability of the cluster in relation to the core aim of the initiative  value for money of the activities  potential for the cluster to exploit and deepen existing relationships with business and develop new relationships  potential for the development of the cluster through securing co-funding from partners and/or other agencies and business organisations  overall management and organisation structure

Date Arial Bold 10pt ESRC Capacity Building Clusters Scheme (2)  appropriateness of the proposed organisation and management of the Business Voucher scheme  adequacy of strategies for ensuring effective business engagement and knowledge exchange/transfer (relevance and support of the ESRC’s Business Engagement Strategy)  current critical mass of studentships (including CASE) and other capacity building activity (including KTPs) and the existing supervisory/mentoring experience for hosting these awards  suitability of proposed strategies for capturing the impact of the activities in the cluster package  how the cluster application adds to this provision and develops/further develops critical mass  the suitability of proposed strategies for capturing the impact of the activities in the cluster package