Recio Saucedo, Alejandra, Crane, Ksenia, Meadmore, Katie, Fackrell, Kathryn, Church, Hazel, Fraser, Simon and Blatch-Jones, Amanda (2022) What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 7 (1). (doi:10.1186/s41073-022-00120-2).
Abstract
Introduction: allocation of research funds relies on peer review to support funding decisions, and these processes can be susceptible to biases and inefficiencies. The aim of this work was to determine which past interventions to peer review and decision-making have worked to improve research funding practices, how they worked, and for whom.
Methods: realist synthesis of peer-review publications and grey literature reporting interventions in peer review for research funding.
Results: we analysed 96 publications and 36 website sources. Sixty publications enabled us to extract stakeholder-specific context-mechanism-outcomes configurations (CMOCs) for 50 interventions, which formed the basis of our synthesis. Shorter applications, reviewer and applicant training, virtual funding panels, enhanced decision models, institutional submission quotas, applicant training in peer review and grant-writing reduced interrater variability, increased relevance of funded research, reduced time taken to write and review applications, promoted increased investment into innovation, and lowered cost of panels.
Conclusions: reports of 50 interventions in different areas of peer review provide useful guidance on ways of solving common issues with the peer review process. Evidence of the broader impact of these interventions on the research ecosystem is still needed, and future research should aim to identify processes that consistently work to improve peer review across funders and research contexts.
More information
Identifiers
Catalogue record
Export record
Altmetrics
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.