Faculty of Science
Internal Grant Review System
Background
The Research Councils have been required to make efficiency savings in their administration,
with the aim of maximising the budget for research. In order to achieve this they need to
reduce the number of applications that they receive (“demand management”), with the
potential benefit of an increased success rate.
We are therefore now required to manage our applications so that the quality of our
proposals is kept acceptably high. If we fail to achieve this then we may be sanctioned in the
future. The Faculty therefore now requires all applications to the Research Councils,
including those based elsewhere on which we are CoIs (as these also contribute to our
application quality profiles), to undergo internal pre-submission review. While we should not
submit any proposal that is likely to be uncompetitive, our primary aim is to improve the
quality of the proposals we submit. As few PIs have a success rate of 100%, this process
should be helpful to all applicants. The procedure needs to be completed early enough to
allow the reviewing to have a positive impact on the applications. We also need to be able to
show in an audit that our applications have been through such a process. It is clearly vital
that colleagues fully cooperate with this scheme and give requests for reviews a high
priority. There are also likely to be benefits from the improved communication of research
plans among colleagues, and from sharing best practice.
Process
The process will focus on the Case for Support, though ideally the opportunity will be taken
to request feedback on other components of the proposal. The case should be prepared
following the relevant guidelines for style and length, and provided as a Word document to
the reviewers.
The PI is required to obtain, normally, two reviews of their application from appropriate
academic colleagues. At least one of these reviewers should be a more experienced grant
winner or assessor. Reviewers should refer to the respective research council guidance,
assessment criteria and reviewer forms but primarily the review should identify the
proposal’s strengths and weaknesses. Reviewers are also encouraged to comment directly
on proposals using tracked changes. The reviewers should not be CoIs on the proposal.
Reviewers do not need to be experts on the specific topic of the proposal, especially as
grants committees often have limited expertise. The use of reviewers from other
departments is encouraged, especially where they have more experience of the topic or
funding body.
Reviews should be requested at least one month before the deadline and must be returned
to the PI within a maximum of one week. This should then give the PI time to make any
required improvements. If you have difficulty in identifying suitable reviewers you should
contact your departmental or research group coordinators (as listed below). You may also
1
find it helpful to consult with current and recent members of Research Council panels (see
separate document on the Faculty Peer Review System webpages – “funder panels and
boards”).
The PI should then email the following information, the application and the two reviews to
the HoD, or HoD’s nominee, via the email address shown below. Copies of these emails
should be retained within the department so that they are available for audit.
Title of proposal:
Lead PI:
Co-PIs:
Funding body:
Submission deadline:
I confirm that the above grant has been subject to an internal review and feedback by:
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Date:
The HoD will then indicate to the PI whether they will support the proposal (i) as written, (ii)
support it subject to revision, or (iii) not support it. In the case of (ii), a record should be kept
of how the proposal was revised – the PI should email this with the revised case to the HoD
or HoD’s nominee, as above, prior to formal submission.
This process is required for all RCUK applications, though its use to improve the quality of
other applications is encouraged.
Please send updates of coordinator details and panel memberships to Chris Smith
(c.p.smith@sheffield.ac.uk).
Addresses for submitting proposals to HoDs/ Nominees
APS
BMS – CDBG, CSCB, CMIAD
BMS – other
Chemistry
MBB
Physics
Psychology
SoMaS
hodaps@sheffield.ac.uk
Relevant Centre Director (see below)
hodbms@sheffield.ac.uk
ch-hod@shef.ac.uk
hod.mbb@sheffield.ac.uk
n.clarke@sheffield.ac.uk
p.g.overton@sheffield.ac.uk
Somas-hos@sheffield.ac.uk
Departmental/ Research Group Coordinators
APS
Ecology & Environment
Evolution & Behaviour
Plant & Microbial Biology
Rob Freckleton
Roger Butlin
Andrew Fleming
2
Mark Rees
Jon Slate
Jonathan Leake
BMS
Chemistry
MBB
Physics
Psychology
SoMaS
CMIAD
Liz Smythe
CSCB
Peter Andrews
CDBG
Phil Ingham
Physiology/ Neuroscience
David Grundy
Chemical Biology
Chris Hunter
Polymers, Materials & Steve Armes
Surfaces
Synthesis (& Catalysis)
Mike Ward
Theory & Spectroscopy
Patrick Fowler
TBC
Particle Physics
Neil Spooner
Astrophysics
Clive Tadhunter
Inorganic nanostructures
Maurice Skolnick
Polymers, soft condensed David Lidzey
matter
Paschal Sheeran (DRI) in all instances
Algebra
David Jordan
Fluid Dynamic
Koji Ohkitani
Environment, Biology
Control
Number Theory
Probability & Statistics
Solar Physics
& Nick Monk
Topology, Geometry
Categories
& Sarah Whitehouse
Tobias Berger
Jeremy Oakley
Michael Ruderman
3
Kathryn Ayscough
Harry Moore
Marysia Placzek
Matthew Holley
Robert
von
Siebenburgen
Shaun Quegan
John Biggins
Robert
von
Siebenburgen
John Greenlees
Fay-
Fay-