Peer review arrangements for the new NHMRC Grant Program
8 May 2018Last year the NHMRC announced the new structure for the new Grant Program. From 2019 the new grant program will be include four major schemes: investigator grants, ideas grants, synergy grants, and strategic and leveraging grants. You can find out more about these new grant schemes in the handy overview table published by AAMRI in 2017.
Following consultation with the sector the NHMRC revealed during a webinar on 26th April, 2018 how peer review is expected to work for the new grant schemes.
AAMRI has prepared a high-level summary of the main points covered in the webinar below.
1-Investigator grants
Peer review process
Structure – panel only, no interviews, panel discussion by exception, five assessors per application
- Five-member panels assess application using all criteria
- Video/teleconference Discussion by panel and by exception only (e.g. anomalous scoring)
- Ranked list based on overall score
Peer review scoring elements and weighting
Peer review element | Weighting | Assessment criteria/indicators | |
---|---|---|---|
Track record | Publications | 35% | · 10-year list (accounting for career disruption) · 5 best publications |
Research impact | 20% | Presented as a case study, with the following indicators used for assessment · Knowledge (Evidence of scientific reach and influence) · Health (Engagement, participation in clinical research, policy leadership, clinical guidelines, standards, development of product/intervention) · Economic (Healthcare cost savings, IP development, industry collaboration, start-up company, product to market, employment) · Social (End-user/public engagement, community health benefit, wellbeing of end-user and community, reducing inequalities) |
|
Leadership | 15% | · Research programs and team leadership · Institutional leadership · Research policy and professional leadership · Research mentoring |
|
Knowledge gain | 30% | Research significance and quality |
2-Synergy grants
Peer review process
Structure – panel only, no interviews, at least five assessors per application
Stage 1
- Knowledge gain and synergy assessment – by broad expertise panel members
- Short list applications
- Tele/videoconference discussion by exception (e.g. anomalous scores)
Stage 2 – shortlisted applications only
- Track record assessment – discipline-specific panel members
- Tele/videoconference discussion by exception (e.g. anomalous scores)
- Ranked list based on overall score (all criteria)
Peer review scoring elements and weighting
Peer review element | Weighting | Assessment criteria/indicators | |
---|---|---|---|
Track record | Publications | 40% | · 10-year list (accounting for career disruption) · 5 best publications |
Synergy | Diverse research teams | 30% | E.g. gender, career stage, culture |
Engagement | Engagement with: · People with specialised knowledge (as CI, AI, consultant etc) · Direct beneficiaries of research) |
||
Knowledge gain | 30% | Research significance and quality |
3-Ideas grants
Peer review process
Structure – panel only, no external assessments or rebuttals, discussion by exception, at least four assessors per application, no track record element other than feasibility
- Discipline-based panels – four spokespersons score each application (all criteria)
- NFFC and Rescue
- Panel meeting – all members score all applications (all criteria)
- Ranked list based on overall score
Peer review scoring elements and weighting
Peer review element | Weighting | Assessment criteria/indicators |
---|---|---|
Research quality | 35% | Awaiting further information |
Innovation and creativity | 25% | |
Significance | 20% | |
Feasibility | 20% |
4-Strategic and leveraging grants – clinical trials and cohort studies scheme
Peer review process
- Panel – spokespersons score each application (all criteria)
- Identify least competitive
- Panel meeting – confirm least competitive applications. All members score remaining applications (all criteria)
- Ranked list based on overall score
Peer review scoring elements and weighting
Peer review element | Weighting | Assessment criteria/indicators |
---|---|---|
Significance | 40% | Descriptors being developed for clinical trials and cohort studies |
Research quality | 40% | |
Team quality and capability | 20% |