Assessment procedure
All proposals for MRC grant funding are assessed through a two-stage process involving independent expert reviewers and the MRC research boards/panels. The core assessment criteria are the importance of the scientific questions being asked, the research programme’s potential for advancing biomedical science, and the justification for the resources requested.
Three core criteria
Our external reviewers and research boards/panels assess proposals against the following three core criteria:
- Importance: how important are the questions, or gaps in knowledge, that are being addressed?
- Scientific potential: what are the prospects for good scientific progress?
- Resources requested: are the funds requested essential for the work, and do the importance and scientific potential justify funding on the scale requested?
Our reviewers and research boards/panels also identify any ethical issues or risks to human participants that need further attention. In addition, some MRC grant schemes have scheme-specific criteria and subsidiary questions which they will consider. More information is given in the separate scheme-specific annexes that accompany the applicants’ handbook.
Assessment procedure
Stage 1 – External peer review
All proposals are reviewed by specialist referees (UK and international) where appropriate.
The number of proposals currently being submitted to the MRC means that it is necessary for us to use a triage system to identify at an early stage those proposals which are unlikely to be funded. Triage decisions are made by the chairs and deputy chairs of the research boards/panels, based on the views of independent peer-reviewers and board/panel members. Proposals are short-listed for further consideration at board/panel funding meetings.
The reviewers’ comments are fed back (verbatim but unattributed) to all applicants after the shortlisting process.
Stage 2 - Research board/panel assessment
Applicants whose proposals are short-listed can comment on their reviewers’ feedback and these comments will be forwarded to the board/panel before the meeting.
At the board meeting new investigator research grants will be considered separately from grant proposals but funding for these awards will come from the overall board budget.
All short-listed applicants receive feedback on the reasons for the board/panel decision, through an emailed assessment template.
Confidentiality
The proposal and any associated papers submitted to the MRC are then forwarded ‘in confidence’ to external reviewers and board/panel members. However, while assessing proposals they may sometimes need to consult with colleagues, in confidence, about individual applications.
Scoring system
Details of the scoring system used by reviewers and the board/panel can also be found in the reviewers’ handbook.
Declarations of interest
When selecting scientific experts to review research proposals, the programme managers at MRC Head Office consider possible conflicts of interest. Each reviewer is asked to identify any possible conflicts of interest before they begin reviewing an application and to decline to review an application if there are any.
During funding meetings, if a proposal presents a potential conflict of interest for any of the research board/panel members present, they must leave the meeting room during discussion of the application and are not involved in any way in the decision-making process.
The MRC maintains an updated register of declarations of interest by its board/panel members, to help identify any possible conflicts of interest.
More about declarations of interest
Email: grants@headoffice.mrc.ac.uk