Anglia Ruskin University internal Faculty peer review form for Research Applications
Thank you for agreeing to review this application. We very much appreciate your assistance.
Purpose: The Anglia Ruskin University internal Faculty peer review process will provide the applicant with
constructive and informative feedback in order to improve their chances of being funded. Apart from the need to
improve our general overall success rate, there is an increased expectation from funders that the HEI will take an
active part in ensuring the high quality nature of submissions; penalties for poor submissions under demand
management strategies are becoming more common place. Internal peer review plays a vital role in institutional
quality assurance.
Eligibility: Ideally ALL applications for external research funding should have engaged with internal peer review as
no matter the size of the application the process will be beneficial. However, it is an advisory not a mandatory
process.
The Process: It is suggested that the Reviewer, as nominated/suggested by the Faculty/Institute or requested by
the Applicant, should be provided with a draft of the application form no later than 2 weeks before the
submission date. However the Reviewer and the Applicant can determine their own schedule as long as the
quality of the feedback is not compromised and adequate time for revisions to the application are allowed. The
Reviewer should ensure that this form is completed and returned and/or discussed with the Applicant no later
than a week after the request for peer review has been made. (Please note feedback may be given on the
proposal from the perspective of a non-specialist; the value of such feedback should not be underestimated.)
All Peer Review is expected to be conducted with rigor, fairness and integrity. All research is to be treated equally
regardless of its nature and focus must be on the quality and value of the study. Also, although issues such as
project management and ethical implications are not necessarily central to the quality of the research, reviewers
should be satisfied that they are acceptable.
Form completion: Please complete as many of the sections as are relevant to the application. Reviewers should
focus equally on the strengths and weaknesses of a proposal, refrain from one word comments and offer
considered structured feedback. Boxes will expand if completed electronically.
Name of Principal
Investigator
Project Title
Name of Reviewer
Date sent to Reviewer
Date returned to Applicant
1
1. Comment on the Relevance and Background of the proposed research
 How relevant is the project to the priorities of the funder?
 Does the application demonstrate an awareness and understanding of previous relevant
research and developments?
 Does the research add value? Does it convey its importance?
2. Comment on the Research Design
 Is the lay summary/abstract clear and concise and easily understood by a lay person?
 Is the research question/problem clearly stated?
 Are the aims and objectives clearly stated and does the research address them? Are
there measurable objectives?
2
3. Comment on the Methodology
 Is the methodology clearly explained, sound and appropriate?
 Do the work plan and project management arrangements seem realistic and will the
milestones be met?
 Is there demonstration of previous successful project management experience?
4. Comment on the Strength of the individual researcher or team
 Are the roles of the team clearly explained and are all required skills and competencies
covered?
3
5. Comment on the Impact and Dissemination
 Are the outputs appropriate in type and number for the size and nature of the
application?
 Is there an acceptable approach to dissemination?
6. Comment on the Value for money
 Taking into account the expected benefits and amount of funding sought is the
application good value for money?
4
7. Is the project worthwhile, innovative and timely? Is there something original, compelling and
exciting about the proposed research?
8. Additional comments
RDCS would appreciate it of a copy of this peer review form could be sent to ruth.sandland@anglia.ac.uk for
the project file
Form version 1 July 2013 – Ruth Sandland – UK Research Funding Manager
5