School of Global Studies
Research Grant Internal Peer Review form
Part A: to be completed by the PrincipaI Investigator in collaboration with the
Research Lead from their Department as follows:
Anthropology: Jane Cowan
International Relations: Jan Selby
Geography: Research Cluster Leader as appropriate:





Martin Todd – Climate and Society
Mike Collyer – Geographies of Migration
Carl Griffin – Histories, Cultures and Networks
Clionadh Raleigh – Geographies of Globalisation and Development
Julian Murton – Geomorphology
Name of applicant(s):
Deadline/submission date:
Source of intended funding:
Approximate sum being sought:
(Draft) title of project:
Please suggest two internal reviewers who might provide useful comments/critique
of your proposal:
1.
2.
Please attach a draft proposal (early rough drafts are fine!)
Date submitted for internal review:
Your proposal will be sent to two appropriate reviewers, and you will receive their
written comments within 10 days of the submission date.
Part B : REVIEWERS to complete
Instructions to reviewers :
In addition to answering the questions on this form, please mark sections of the draft
document that:



Need clarification
Where content is confusing or incorrect
Where content seems inconsistent from section to section
Return completed form and draft document with any track changes to
appropriate Research Lead for your Department.
Medeni Fordham (M.Fordham@sussex.ac.uk) needs to be emailed with confirmation that
internal peer reviewing has been completed prior to sign off by Peter Newell, Director of
Research and Knowledge Exchange ideally 5 working days prior to application deadline.
1. What are the proposal’s strengths?
2. Describe up to three major weaknesses of the proposal (if any)?
3. Does the proposal raise an important question/problem?
4. Is the writing clear and concise?
5. Are the paragraphs organised to allow for intelligent skimming?
6. Any additional comments?
7. Would the proposed research contribute to resolving the question/problem?
Checklist
The following checklist is aimed to aid reviewers in considering areas that are weak
and may need additional work:












Importance and originality of the proposed research
Soundness of the study design / appropriateness of the approach
Adequacy / appropriateness of analysis proposed
Appropriateness of references cited
Clarity of presentation
Completeness of presentation
Accurateness / adequacy of abstract
Are the outputs and deliverables clear and consistent with the study
design/description?
Are any risks adequately addressed?
Is the impact plan clear and appropriate?
Are any sections too long?
o Abstract
o Background/info
o Specific aims
o Significance
o Study design
o References
Are any sections too short?
o Abstract
o Background/info
o Specific aims
o Significance
o Study design
o References