Research Proposal Review

Research proposals usually undergo multiple review steps before a funding decision is made. These steps may include peer review, where the research proposal is reviewed by technical experts in the research subject area. Peer review feedback also allows applicants and authors to improve their research by identifying methodological errors, gaps in knowledge and other improvements through constructive feedback.

The main goals for conducting review are to:

• Support due diligence and best practice in research;
• Ensure that the questions asked by research are important, original and fill a knowledge gap;
• Ensure that funding decision-making is well informed by expert opinion;
• Ensure value-for-money and support the effective and efficient use of resources;
• Provide feedback to researchers that will nurture and develop their research ideas and skills.

Proposals may also be reviewed by other stakeholders or end users of the research. For example, if a researcher is proposing to develop a vaccine for HIV, it may be reviewed by a non-governmental organization that works with HIV/AIDs patients to provide an end-user perspective that may not be highly technical but will indicate the need for the vaccine.

Proposals may also be reviewed by technical or end user review panels. This is a common step in the review of proposals and is usually combined with the completion of peer reviews. The review panel will review the proposal and the peer reviews then give direction to the funder and the applicant on next steps to a funding decision.

The review questions will be different depending on the type of reviewer. A peer reviewer is expected to provide a more detailed section by section assessment with deeper emphasis on the methodology of the proposed project. Industry/stakeholder/end user reviews usually emphasize on the 'need for the project'. The reviewer emphasizes whether they would adopt the results of the proposed project if they were favorable. Review panels benefit from the discussion approach. Reviewers have the opportunity to defend their opinions and learn from other reviewers. This way a reviewer may change their 'score' depending on the discussion that occurs in the panel.

Conflict of Interest

The following are situations that may potentially result in a conflict of interest:

• Friend/Family: You are a close personal friend or relative of the applicant. You or someone you are close to would benefit from the acceptance/rejection of the application.
• Colleague/Student: You work closely with the applicant (e.g. PhD supervisor) or have worked closely within the last 5 or so years.
• Foe/Personal Conflict: You dislike, have strong negative feelings towards the applicant.
• Competing Submission: You have a competing submission with the same funder.
• Financial Conflict You or an organisation you are connected with will be rewarded financially if the paper is accepted or rejected.
• Same Research Organisation/Academic Institution: You are located in the same department/organisation/academic institution as the applicant.
• Research Committee/Advisory Group/Steering Committee Member: You have agreed to be a member of a committee connected with the research project under review.

---

Proposal Checklist

Background / Introduction

• Will the results of the research fill a gap in our knowledge?
• Will the research advance the research community's understanding of the topic

Literature Review

• Does the proposal demonstrate thorough and current understanding and knowledge of the peer-reviewed literature related to the topic?
• Is the literature reviewed extensively and critically?
• Does the literature review identify the gaps, and/or limitations that provide a context for the study?
• Does the literature review justify the question/problem being studied?

Research Problem

• Is the research problem identified relevant to end users?
• Does the proposal clearly frame the research question/problem?
• Is the research problem/question researchable?
• Does the research problem/question translate into manageable and achievable objectives?
• Is the research problem/question ethical?
• Is the research grounded in the researcher’s experience and context?

Hypothesis / Theoretical Framework

• Is the hypothesis clearly stated
• Does the hypothesis demonstrate clear understanding of current and relevant peer-reviewed literature?
• Is the hypothesis linked to the research problem/question?

Methodology / Research design

• Is the methodology (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods) appropriate for the research question/problem?
• Does the proposal identify and describe the specific type of methodology?
• Is the methodology clearly articulated and supported by current and relevant peer-reviewed literature?
• Is the data collection procedure well organized and will the correct type of data be collected to address the research questions?
• Is the data stastically sufficient in terms of experimental units numbers, replications, stratification, randomness etc?
• Is the timeline appropriate for the kind of project and research questions?
• Does the proposal identify potential challenges that may be experienced during data collection and ways to overcome?
• Does the proposal identify the right way to store samples for the kind of analysis to be completed?
• Does the proposal identify the data analysis procedures that will be utilized?
• Does the proposal address all ethical considerations and approvals that will be required?
• Does the proposal address confidentiality od data collected, anonymization and protection?
• Does the proposal provide sufficient references and citations?
• Are the references provided current?
• Are references provided in the appropriate format?

Knowledge Transfer

• Does the proposal identify the core beneiciaries of the project results? Does it also identify secondary beneficiairies?
• Does the proposal identify appropriate tools for knowledge transfer both to the scientific community and also to end-users?
• Does the proposal utilize any unique approaches to reach end users?

Commercialization and Intellectual Property (IP)

• Has the proposal developed an approach that will be used if commercilizable material is generated by the project?
• Does the proposal identify who owns IP and how any IP might be diseminated for commercial purposes.

Project Team

• Does the project involve all required expertize to accomplish research actiities?
• How large is the team?
• Is the Principal Investigator capable of leading the team and delivering the objectives of the project as proposed?

General considerations

• Is the proposal coherent, logical and easily understood by reviewers?
• Is the project, as proposed, likely to get institutional ethics approval?

Are there any obvious grammar or spelling mistakes that may indicate carelessness, or a proposal that was quickly put together?