Peer Review: how research funders judge scientific merit

What is peer review?

Peer review is the evaluation of research proposals by independent experts in the relevant field. These reviewers assess scientific merit, feasibility and value, and their judgement determines which projects a funder should back. It is the mechanism by which research funding decisions gain scientific credibility.

Its defining feature is expertise. General evaluation can judge whether a proposal is well-written or aligned with a program; only a subject-matter expert can judge whether the science is sound, novel and achievable, which is exactly what research funding decisions turn on.

‍

How is peer review different from application scoring?

Peer review is a specialised form of expert evaluation, not the same as general application scoring. Scoring rates submissions against a shared grid that any trained reviewer can apply; peer review requires independent experts who can assess the substance of the research itself.

The two can work together: peer reviewers often score proposals against defined criteria. But the distinguishing element is who does the judging and on what basis, deep field expertise applied to scientific merit, rather than a generic rubric applied to presentation and fit.

‍

What makes peer review challenging to run?

Peer review carries coordination and integrity challenges that general scoring does not. Reviewers must be recruited from a narrow expert pool, their workload managed, and their scores consolidated fairly, often across many proposals and several reviewers each.

Because experts tend to come from the same community as applicants, conflict of interest is a structural rather than occasional risk. Managing declarations and recusals rigorously is central to keeping peer review both credible and defensible.

‍

Coordinating peer review in a platform

A research grant management platform handles the mechanics of peer review: assigning proposals to reviewers, managing conflicts and recusals, collecting scores against criteria, and consolidating them for a funding decision, so a demanding expert process stays organised and auditable.