This guide has been produced by The Research Information Network to provide
researchers with an understanding of the peer review process and some of the
current issues surrounding the debate about peer review.
The guide is available at www.rin.ac.uk/peer-review-guide
Hard copies can be ordered to distribute to colleagues, please email catherine.gray@rin.ac.uk
About the Research Information Network
The Research Information Network has been established by the higher education funding councils,
the research councils, and the UK national libraries. We investigate how efficient and effective the
information services provided for the UK research community are, how they are changing, and
how they might be improved for the future. We help to ensure that researchers in the UK benefit
from world-leading information services, so that they can sustain their position as among the
most successful and productive researchers in the world. All our publications are available on our
website at www.rin.ac.uk

Researchers
submit applications to funding body
Some funding bodies allow
applicants to nominate one or more
reviewers themselves
In-house staff
transmit applications to funding committee
In-house staff
receive assessments•
where competition for funds is intense, staff may inform •
applicants with low grades that their applications have been
withdrawn, and provide feedback from reviewers
for applications that pass a grading threshold, staff may • transmit
reviewers’ comments to applicants, and invite a response
Peer reviewers
examine and assess the application for such matters as •
quality and track record of team, research design and
methodology, originality and value for money
grade in accordance with a pre-determined scale•
Funding committee
consider reviewers’ assessments and recommendations, •
and any responses from applicants
assign final grades to applications, and agree feedback • as
appropriate
make funding decisions•
Researchers
respond to reviewers’ comments if given the opportunity
In-house staff
log and acknowledge receipt•
check to ensure applications meet basic eligibility criteria•
send to peer reviewers•
Success rates in UK Research
Council competitions averaged
around 28% in 2005-06.
Since then they have fallen
to well under 20% in several
competitions
Peer reviewers are not paid, and
may spend up to 8 hours reviewing
a proposal
Many funding bodies have
established panels of reviewers, for
whom they provide training before they
undertake reviews.
The number of reviewers will usually
depend on the scale of the funding
request, and may range from 2 or 3 up
to 6 or 8
Members of funding committees
may individually review and grade
applications before the committee
meets
How peer review works: grant applications
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓
↓