Internal Peer Review
- Peer Review and Mentoring Procedure
Peer Review Procedure
This procedure is intended to be supportive and constructive, with the aim of increasing the competitiveness of grants submitted for external funding. The process is not intended to take the place of any informal review that may be arranged between colleagues.
Peer Review is mandatory when leading an application to:
- the Wellcome Trust;
- any funder where the value is >£150K;
- where the Principal Investigator has not previously secured a research grant >£20k; or has not been awarded a research grant within the last 18 months.
In addition, all applications from the following Schools/Institute require, proportionate, peer review regardless of value: Schools of Divinity, History and Philosophy, Psychology, Language, Literature, Music and Visual Culture, Social Sciences, Law, Business School, Education and the Institute of Applied Health Sciences
What is required
Peer review should be arranged from at least two reviewers who are independent to the research. Reviewers are usually internal to the University but external reviewers can be used, where appropriate. Senior staff in your School, or your Business Development Officer, may be able to provide guidance on identifying appropriate peer reviewers.
Please ensure you approach your peer reviewers early and agree a reasonable timescale for them to receive, review and return comments on your application.
Expectations of peer reviewers
- Consider yourself as a ‘critical friend’ by offering constructive, impartial and honest advice to help to increase the overall quality of a proposal;
- Review all parts of the application: e.g. JeS form, budget, Data Management Plan etc– not just the plan of work;
- Provide written comments to the applicant in any preferred format e.g. by email, tracked copy of the proposal; using a proforma (example here or, if you only have a few remarks, please provide these in the peer reviewer approval box in Worktribe;
- Consult the Guidance for Peer-reviewers here
When will a proposal be signed off?
The Head of School/Institute will only approve proposals requiring peer review, when they are satisfied appropriate review has been undertaken and any comments addressed. Please note: R&I is not be permitted to authorise submission of applications without Head of School/Institute Approval.
How to record peer review in Worktribe
- Nominate the 2 peer reviewers under the peer review tab;
- We would encourage you to provide copies of any peer reviews you receive under the document tab;
- Please submit the proposal for internal approval in Worktribe, once the reviewer has confirmed they are happy to approve the proposal.
- Please respond to the Worktribe notification by confirming you have reviewed the proposal and whether you support submission.
- If your comments are minimal these can be stated directly in the approval box. Otherwise please return your comments, in any convenient format, directly to the principal investigator.
- Peer reviewers are not currently able to edit or upload their comments into to the Worktribe record directly.
Intention to Submit
- Intention to Submit UKRI Research Councils or Wellcome Trust Grant Applications
All grants to UKRI Research Councils and the Wellcome Trust must follow the “Intention to Submit an RCUK or Wellcome Trust Grant Application” process. There is a separate process for the NERC Discovery science responsive mode.
Please note this process is to be used when a University of Aberdeen-led proposal is being developed. Where the University of Aberdeen is a co-applicant, the usual process for grant applications applies.
The aim of introducing this process is to give senior staff and peer reviewers early visibility of potential grant applications in order that constructive and meaningful input can be provided in a timely way. Potential applicants should complete the Intention to Submit Form and submit to their Business Development Officer in Research and Innovation.
Please contact your Business Development Officer if you require assistance with any aspect of this process.
- NERC Intention to Submit
All grants to NERC Discovery Science (Responsive Mode) must follow the "NERC Intention to Submit" process.
As part of its Demand Management NERC has introduced new measures designed to raise success rates for the discovery science standard grant. From the July 2015 discovery science standard grants round the University of Aberdeen will have an institutional cap on the number of applications that can be submitted to the scheme. Our current cap is 2 applications per round.
Supporting Fellowships Application
- Fellowship Applications Support Process
Fellowship Applications Support Process
Fellowship schemes are highly competitive and require the applicant to plan well in advance in order to target their applications correctly. Chances of success are strongly increased by:
- A strong C.V.
- Awareness of and alignment with the funding programme
- Well-designed project plan
- Highly polished application
In order to provide our candidates with the best chance for success, it is recommended that the following steps are undertaken as part of our internal fellowship applications support process.
1. Initial discussion
Find out more about the types of fellowship schemes that are available and receive information on the benchmarks of competitiveness that should be achieved through one to one discussion with your School Business Development Officer (BDO), induction workshops and grant writing courses. The Fellowship Applications Support Process varies between Schools and your School BDO will be able to advise on the support available to you.
2. Complete required fellowship documents
At this stage, you are required to provide information regarding the funders/schemes you wish to target, along with an abstract of the proposed project and CV. You would also need to identify a Supervisor.
3. Discussion with senior staff
Potential applicants will have the opportunity to discuss their research idea with a group of senior staff (in person/virtual meeting) to critically assess the strength of their proposal. The discussion outcome will be classified as follows:
- Proceed with the application.
- Further development is required e.g. securing additional publications, supporting data or collaborator links.
- The proposal is unlikely to be competitive with the named funder/call. Senior staff will be on hand to discuss other options to support the researcher’s career development such as alternative projects, training or career development pathways.
4. Personal timetable
Candidates will be assigned an Application Mentor, peer reviewers and fellowship buddy (if applicable to the scheme), and a timetable towards submission.
It is recommended to have the traffic light interview 3-6 months prior to the funder’s deadline. External fellowship candidates need to go through this process too, so if you are aware of any external fellowship candidates please forward the associated forms to them.