Ethics approval is formal confirmation, usually from an ethics committee or institutional review board, that a research project meets accepted standards for the treatment of participants, data and welfare.
Funders often require evidence of ethics approval before releasing funds, making it a checkpoint that grant management needs to record and verify.
Ethics approval is formal confirmation, usually from an ethics committee or institutional review board (IRB), that a research project meets accepted standards for the treatment of participants, data and welfare. It certifies the project is ethically sound to proceed.
Peer review judges the scientific merit and feasibility of a proposal, is the research good? Ethics approval judges whether it can be conducted responsibly, is it safe and ethical for participants? A proposal can be excellent science yet still need ethics clearance.
Because it protects research participants and the funder alike. Funders often require evidence of ethics approval before releasing funds, so it becomes a checkpoint that grant management must record and verify, not just assume.
By treating it as a required condition in the workflow: recording the approval document, verifying it before disbursement, and keeping it in the audit trail. This ensures no funds are released for work that lacks the necessary ethical clearance.
The newest terms we've added, the words teams managing grants, sponsorship, and CSR come across most often.
Blind review is the practice of assessing applications with identifying details withheld from reviewers — applicant name, organisation, and often location — so that scores reflect the proposal rather than its author's reputation.
Blind review reduces one kind of bias and cannot remove all of them. Writing quality, named partners and budget scale often reveal the applicant anyway, which is why funders pair it with a declared conflict-of-interest process rather than relying on it alone.
A scoring rubric is the document that defines what reviewers assess in an application, the scale they use for each criterion, and how much each criterion counts toward the total score.
The rubric is the instrument; scoring is the act of using it. Publishing it with the call lets applicants address the criteria directly, and keeping it on file lets a funder explain a decision months after it was made.
A reviewer panel is the group of evaluators a funder assembles to assess applications, often combining internal staff with external experts to bring the right judgement to each decision.
Giving reviewers a shared scoring grid, managing their workload and consolidating results fairly are what keep evaluation both rigorous and efficient.
Book a 15-minute demo and we'll show you the exact setup our client uses to track 15+ regional programs.
.png)