Peer review and decision making in research funding allocation: what are the alternatives?

Blatch-Jones, Amanda, Recio Saucedo, Alejandra, Meadmore, Katie, Fackrell, Kathryn and Fraser, Simon (2020) Peer review and decision making in research funding allocation: what are the alternatives? REWARD/EQUATOR Conference 2020, Berlin.

Abstract

Background Peer review is integral to the decision-making process for the allocation of research funding based on quality, impact and value for money. The scientific community and funding organisations rely on peer review as a form of independent assessment to ensure public research funds are allocated in a fair and transparent way by those who are deemed experts (e.g. researchers, patients and the public, clinicians). Based on a recent systematic mapping review, the current evidence is lacking and peer review presents only a partial picture. It is after all only one aspect of a larger system where many factors are at play during the decision-making processes to allocate research funding. This makes it difficult to understand what approaches are likely to work and in what context for a more optimal decision-making system.
Methods From a funder’s perspective, a series of studies are being conducted to understand whether, where, and in what circumstances alternative approaches to decision-making may work. Stage one of this research programme consists of: a survey with international funders to understand current funding practices, qualitative analysis of interview data to understand stakeholders’ expectations, a review of the feedback given to applicants to understand what makes a good application, a survey with applicants to understand the value of the feedback received, an observational study of funding committees and a realist synthesis to identify elements of the decision-making process.
Results Preliminary findings and evidence from stage one will be used to undertake an eDelphi to explore and gain consensus from key stakeholders on the important elements to include in a model for decision-making in funding allocation and overall acceptance for a feasibility study (Stage 2 of research programme).
Conclusion Peer review and decision-making in research funding is highly variable, so understanding how peer review influences decision-making may help to identify where enhancements can be made. It may well be that the current system is indeed the most adequate approach. However, until we start to acknowledge the uncertainties and test and validate alternative approaches, the burden on reviewers will increase, putting even greater pressure on an already pressured system.

This record has no associated files available for download.

Contributors

Author: Amanda Blatch-Jones

Author: Alejandra Recio Saucedo

Author: Katie Meadmore

Author: Simon Fraser

Download statistics