Summary of MRC Quinquennial Reviews
The MRC carries out scientific reviews in order to be assured of the:
- Overall quality, impact, and productivity (past and future potential) of the Institutes/Units research programmes and the Institute/Unit as a whole;
- Distinctive contribution of the Institute/Unit to MRC’s research portfolio, strategic aims and the wider research effort;
- Added value from the Institute/Units structure;
- Future form of support that is the most appropriate for MRC’s needs (see MRC’s policy for supporting Institutes, Institute/Units and Centres – attached)
- Future resources required.
These reviews take place every five years and for this reason are known as Quinquennial Reviews (QQRs).The process is designed to assess the Institute/Unit overall via its individual scientific programmes, Institute/Unit wide research related activities (e.g. training, communications) and the added value and direction of the whole. The added research value of the MRC-University partnership will also be evaluated.
Reviews are normally reports on past work and future plans; metrics; referee reports, a focussed Subcommittee reporting to the Institutes/Unit’s parent Research Board. The Subcommittee will be chaired by the Board Chair unless there are conflicts of interest. The generic terms of reference for the Subcommittee are:
- To assess the overall quality, impact, and productivity (past and future potential) of the Institutes/Units research programmes and the Institute/Institute/Unit as a whole.
- To consider if, and how, the Institute/Unit continues to make a distinctive contribution to the UK research portfolio addressing a substantial strategic and long-term need.
- To consider if there is demonstrable added value from Institute/Unit support or could equally or more productive research be achieved in other ways e.g. Centre or Programme Grant support, or through improved Institute/Unit-University links including
- the strength of commitment from the University and fit to University strategy;
- partnership and integration with other local stakeholders.
- To assess the Institute/Unit’s role in:
- translating its research into health, societal or economic benefits;
- knowledge transfer;
- training, career development and capacity building;
- public engagement.
- To assess the value for money provided by the Institute/Institute/Unit – taking account of all resources and space - and provide recommendations on whether the work of the Institute/Unit should continue, and if so on what scale, including:
- the management of the Institute/Unit and its core facilities;
- the level of infrastructure support to underpin the research activities.
- Advise on realistic expectations for the development of the Institute/Unit’s work over the next five years and on key performance indicators against which the Institute/Unit may be monitored through the annual reporting process or/and at the next scientific review.
- To report back to the Board.
Major stages of the MRC scientific (QQR) review
The review takes about 9 months from when proposals are submitted to when a budget for the next period is set (ideally 3 months before the end of the current funding period). About 18 months before the end of the Institute/Unit award, MRC Head Office will have a preliminary meeting with the Director to agree a timeline, scope etc., and also discuss this with the University.
1. Submission of an Institute/Institute/Unit Report (previous 5 years outputs and achievements and plans for the next 5 years)
This is usually submitted 12 months before the end of the funding period. Contents of the report include:
- Overview (mission, past and future strategy & vision and how this maps onto MRC and University strategies, distinctiveness, key outputs & achievements, added value and key expectations/objectives for the next five years);
- Individual Programmes (past 5 years work and proposals for the next 5 years );
- Resources – review of past usage and what is needed to deliver the planned future work including use of animals and data sharing;
- Institute/Unit-wide Research Areas (Knowledge Transfer; Training Career Development & Capacity Building, Public Engagement).
3. Peer Review
- UK and International referees comments sought plus stakeholder input as appropriate.
4. First Subcommittee Meeting (0.5 – 1 day at MRC Head Office, London)
- Ensures everyone knows what is expected of them;
- Explores Institute/Unit mission & strategy, distinctiveness and added value;
- Preliminary assessment of all the programmes;
- Reviews documents to ensure have sufficient information to make an informed assessment on the site visit.
5. Second Subcommittee Meeting (2 days at the Institute/Unit)
- Explore past five years and plans for the future with the Institute/Unit Director, Programme Leads, University Representatives and key stakeholder(s);
- Score individual programmes of work, research-wide areas (knowledge transfer, public engagement and training, career development and capacity building) and the Institute/Unit overall;
- Make recommendations for the future strategic direction, form of support and funding envelope appropriate to deliver the science;
- Review and comment on the proposed key objectives for the next 5 years;
- Produce immediate feedback at the end of the visit.
6. Subcommittee Report (usually produced within 6 weeks of the visit)
Full report produced after the visit including recommendations to the Board on the future strategic direction, quality of the science, value for money, future funding form and funding envelope. The Institute/Unit, via the Director, has an opportunity to respond
7. Board Assessment (in the last financial year of the current funding envelope)
- Reviews Institute/Unit Report, Subcommittee Report and the Directors response to the Subcommittee Report;
- Approves the future strategy, confirms quality of the science assessments, ensures value for money and the future form of support are appropriate for the MRC;
- Recommends to Management Board the future key objectives and funding envelope for the next five years.
8. Management Board Approval of the Outcome of the Review