EPSRC, its Application and
Peer Review Process
Dr Emma King
Myths, legends of EPSRC
and its peer review system
If you make your proposal cheaper, the
chances of being funded…
a) Increase
b) Remain the same
c) Decrease
The maximum duration of a project is…
a) 3 years
b) 5 years
c) There is no maximum
Project students…
a) Have a maximum duration of 3 years
b) Have a flexible duration
c) Should be worked into the grave
Impact is…
a) A needless burden that peer review
doesn’t take any notice of
b) The primary criterion for assessment
c) Considered by reviewers in their
assessment and as one of the secondary
criteria at panel.
Of the nominated reviewers…
a) At least one is asked to comment
b) At least one is guaranteed to comment
c) None will be asked
If a proposal receives a strongly negative
reviewer comment the applicant should…
a) Ignore it - the panel will make its own judgement
b) Respond with a detailed rebuttal
c) Give up as the proposal is doomed
Resources on funded grants are cut…
a) When justified by peer review
b) To meet the budget of each panel
c) At the sole discretion of the panel
The criteria for the 12 month cooling-off
period for unsuccessful applicants are…
a) Three or more proposals ranked in the bottom
half OR an overall personal success rate of less
than 25% within a two year period.
b) Three or more proposals ranked in the
bottom half AND / OR an overall personal
success rate of less than 25% within a two
year period.
c) Three or more proposals ranked in the bottom half
AND an overall personal success rate of less than
25% within a two year period.
You can call or email us…
a) By appointment
b) At any time
c) Via your head of department
Format of the session
 Brief introduction to EPSRC,
 EPSRC Application process,
 Case for support and choosing nominated reviewers,
 How to apply,
 EPSRC peer review process,
 Responding to reviewers,
 Roles of panel members, EPSRC,
 What happens next?
Brief Introduction to EPSRC
The Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council

We are the main UK government agency for
funding research and training in engineering and
physical sciences.

We invest around £850 million a year so the UK
will be prepared for the next generation of
technological change.

One of seven Research Councils.
The whole EPSRC picture
Values are commitment 2008-11
Living with environmental change (£9M)
Global threats to security (£6M)
Ageing: life-long health and wellbeing (£11M)
Essential Platform Programme Structure

Cross-Disciplinary Interface

Information & Communications
Technology

Materials, Mechanical & Medical
Engineering

Mathematical Sciences
 Physical Sciences

Process, Environment & Sustainability
Commitment Budget 2008-2011
£866m (grants) £592m (people)

Public Engagement

Research Infrastructure & International
Mission and User-Led Programmes

Digital Economy

Energy Multidisciplinary Applications

Energy Research Capability

Nanoscience through Engineering to Application

Towards Next Generation Healthcare
Commitment budget 2008/11 £398

Knowledge Transfer

User-Led Knowledge & Skills

User-Led Research
Commitment budget 2008/11 £482
Research Grants: Research Base

No closing dates,

Any topic in EPSRC’s remit,

Research direction decided by applicant,

Primary assessment criterion is quality,

Highly flexible – support from £1k  £5m, can include;
 Travel grant;
 Visiting fellow;
 Project students;
 Proof of concept;
 Equipment.
Research Grants: Targeted Calls
For research in a particular subject area:

Proposal must meet certain criteria to be considered
against the call,

Assessment criteria will be given,

Fixed closing date, often an outline stage,

Latest calls for proposals at www.epsrc.ac.uk,

Sign up for an automatic e-mail alert.
Application process – what to include
A standard proposal has:

Application form (JeS form).

Case for support to include:


Track record of applicants (max 2 sides of A4),

Description of proposed research (max 6 slides of A4),

Diagrammatic work-plan (1 side of A4),

Justification of Resources (up to 2 sides of A4),

Pathways to impact (up to 2 sides of A4),
Annexes – only allowed:

Letters of support,

Equipment quotes,

CV for visiting Researchers and RAs (max 2 pages each of A4).
Good Work Plans

Are clear and easy to read.

Describe the work that is proposed, so:
 Match the work packages in the case for support,
 Show how the work packages are linked.

Explain the different roles in the proposal.
Justification of Resources (JoR)
A separate document to the case for support.

Should clearly describe what is being asked for, how
much and why you need it,

Should justify every item you request in your JeS
form, apart from the estates and indirect costs,

PI and CoI time should be justified rather than the
cost.
Poor JoRs:

Lists without including a justification of why it is needed.

Hard to read, layout doesn’t follow the costings on the
JeS form.

Misses out justifications for costings in the JeS form.

Costs/items in the JeS form don’t match the ones in the
JoR.

Doesn’t to justify the PI and CoI time in the grant.

Doesn’t justify or explain the travel and subsistence
section.

Mix up pooled technicians with infrastructure
technicians.

Ask for money to supervise PhD students – not allowed.
Pathways to Impact
Research Council description:
‘The demonstrable contribution that excellent research
makes to society and the economy.’
Aims:

NOT to change the type of research,

To encourage applicants to think about the potential
impact of their research at the time of planning it,

‘Impact’ does not equal ‘applied’ or ‘industry’.
Pathways to Impact
Implication for applicants:

Two new sections on Jes form:
 Impact summary,
 Academic beneficiaries.

Case for support attachment:
 Pathways to impact – separate document
expanding information in summary.

Resources:
 Ask for and justify what you need,
 Consider timescales of a project.
Letters of Support
Only include if they add to the proposal.

For example, letters that say “I support this
proposal and look forward to the results” are not
strengthening the case for the proposal.

Good letters of support are those that contribute to
the proposal (in cash or in kind).

Note that letters of support can not be added to the
proposal after it has been submitted through JeS.
Writing the Case for support
Considerations before applying:
 Idea should be: cutting edge science; creative; value
for money; adventurous; have significant impact (on
whom)?
 Is this appropriate for collaboration?
 Is this suitable for a multi-project application?
 Is this multi-disciplinary?
 Suitable for long-term (more than 36 months)?
 Should/could this be a feasibility study?
Consider the audience you are writing to:
 Look at the reviewer forms,
(on website at:
http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/Forms/Reviewers/default.htm).
Emphasise – these are the people to convince; they are
the experts in the research field.
 Be clear about the ideas and management issues.
 Provide a good, clear and concise work-plan.
 Panel Assessment Criteria.
 For targeted calls – objective of the call and criteria.
Advice on choosing nominated reviewers
Choose:
 People who are experts in the research field and/or
able to judge the value of the research to people who
might use its results.
Don’t choose:
 Someone who has a close working relationship in the
past e.g. PhD supervisor.
 Or now e.g. project partner, someone from the same
organisation as the PI or CoIs.
 More than one reviewer from the same organisation.
How to apply
 EPSRC Staff can NOT access JeS.
 Proposals can NOT be submitted after a call closing
date / time.
 Once a proposal is submitted, it can NOT be changed.
To note:
 Checks on costings, documentation are performed
at the registration stage. Once registered, any
amendments needed, proposal will have to be
rejected.
 JoRs are checked just before the reviewers are
added. If incorrect, it will be returned to the PI to
amend. Have one chance to amend, if still not right
will be rejected.
Top tips
 Speak to your Research Office for costings and how to
use JeS,
 Get someone who is successful at getting funding from
EPSRC to read through your proposal,
 Ask to see successful grant applications and
unsuccessful,
 Get someone who is on EPSRC peer review college to
read your grant and to assess it as a reviewer would.
Peer Review Process
The Peer Review Process

Standard – reviewers then panel.

Targeted – vary according to the scheme/call,
this could be:
 Panel only,
 Reviewers then interviews etc.
The Peer Review Process
Proposal
Portfolio Manager
PI Response
Rank Order
Reviewers:
Unsupportive
One from Proposer
Two from College
Supportive
Budget
Rejection
EPSRC
College
Peer Review
Panel
from Council
Not Fund
Head of
Programme
Fund
Who are the reviewers?
Approach at least:

One of three reviewers nominated by applicant –
(think carefully who you nominate),

Two members of the EPSRC College of experts.
May also approach:

Other independent reviewers,

Previous reviewers for continuity for invited
resubmissions.
Research Base Panel Reviewer Criteria
Assess against:
Assess whole proposal as:
 Excellence,
Novelty, timeliness, context, ambition,
adventure, methodology.
 Impact,
Beneficiaries, collaborators,
dissemination, knowledge exchange.
 Applicant,
Skills, track record, research partners,
ability to deliver.
 Resources & Management.
 Overall assessment.

Very strong – fully
meets criteria.

Strong – broadly meets
criteria.

Good – meets criteria
with minor weaknesses.

Meets criteria but with
clear weaknesses.

Does not meet one or
more criterion.

Flawed.
Applicant Response to Reviewers

Panels place great emphasis on the usefulness and
quality of the response.

Lack of suitable response to key issues may lead to
a lower ranking of a really good proposal.

Read reviewer comments carefully and provide a
balanced response.

Respond to ALL reviewer comments (five working
days to respond).
Role of the Panel
Their primary role is:

To generate a rank ordered list of research
proposals in priority order for funding.
Based on:

The assessment of the reviewers.

The proposer’s response to reviewers.

Technical assessments from facilities (if relevant).
Role of the EPSRC at the Panel
The role of EPSRC Officials is to:

Facilitate the meeting,

Offer guidance on EPSRC rules and procedures,

Record decisions and comments,

Feedback any advice from the Panel to applicant.
Outside the meeting:

To determine the funding cut-off and allocation of
resources to the competing proposals.
The Panel Process
 Two speakers per proposal – one expert, one generalist.
 Speakers score each section of the reviewer form (quality,
impact, applicant(s) ability, resources and management)
based on the reviewer comments and PI response to these.
 Overall score - based on the individual criterion scores.
 Speakers and panel agree overall score and rank position
based on the speaker pre-scores and discussions.
 Note: scores are only a tool used at panel to generate the
rank ordered list. Rank position is important not the
score.
What happens next?
 Funding meeting with HoP and convenor – funding
decisions made.
 Confirmation letter within two weeks after the panel.
 Feedback – only if panel direct.
What happens if the proposal
is not funded?
Resubmissions:
 No longer accept uninvited resubmissions.
 Definition: any proposal submitted to EPSRC
through any funding scheme,
Or any proposal considered by another funding
scheme.
 If a proposal is submitted and it’s a resubmission,
then it will be rejected. Count as unsuccessful
application.
12 month cooling-off period for
unsuccessful applicants
Why are we doing this?
 To help alleviate pressure on all involved in peer
review.
What is the criteria for selection?
 PIs who have three or more proposals within a two
year period ranked in the bottom half of the
prioritisation list or rejected before panel, AND an
overall personal success rate of less than 25% over
the same two years.
When does the policy come into place?
 April 2010.
 Monthly email to affected applicants, copied to RO.
Applicants meeting the criteria: allowed to submit one
application during the next 12 months and asked to
review their resubmission behaviour.
What is the purpose of the cooling-off period?
 For applicants to assess submission behaviour and,
if appropriate, seek advice from colleagues about the
application process or submission strategy.
How will a cooling-off period end?
 Automatically ends 12 months after the start date.
We will expect to receive details about what steps
have been taken to address issues with submission
behaviour.
What happens if the proposal is funded?
 Offer letter pack is sent.
 Pack includes starting certificate.
 Once the PI starts the project, your finance office
submits the starting certificate.
Do you want to find out more information?
See www.epsrc.ac.uk:
http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/apprev/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/forms/Pages/default.aspx
Come to a EPSRC Study Day:
http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/about/partner/universities/Pages/studydays.aspx
Contact: emma.king@epsrc.ac.uk
01793 44 4419.