STFC

Guidance Notes: Preparing a Referee Research Grant Report

When preparing a referee research grant report you should be aware that certain comments will be sent to the applicants. It is therefore essential that when writing comments you adhere to the following structure.

APPLICANT DETAILS / Principal Investigators Name & Institution.
THE APPLICANT / How well do you know the applicant and by what route?
CONFLICT OF INTEREST / Referees are required to declare whether they have/have not any conflicts of interest. Failure to make this declaration will invalidate the report.
PROPOSAL DETAILS / Reference Number, Assessor Name and Grant Type (see letter heading for details) & Title.
EXCELLENCE
  1. Please comment on the strengths of the proposal
  2. Please comment on the weaknesses of the proposal
/ Please identify whether you are commenting on the proposal as a whole, or only commenting on a particular area.
Is the science excellent quality and worthwhile?
Are the objectives of the proposal clearly stated and soundly based?
Comment on the novelty and originality of the proposals
Is the proposal timely?
What is the likely significance to astronomy, particle physics or nuclear physics?
What is the relationship with other work in the UK and abroad?
Reliability of methods and techniques proposed?
How does the proposal map onto STFC’s high priority future programme?
  1. Comment on the international relevance of the research
/ How does the project fit within the international context?
  1. Describe how and why you would rate any potential advancement in the field resulting from the proposed project

  1. Describe the importance of supporting the proposed project?

IMPACT
  1. Comment on the extent to which the proposal shows the potential economic and societal impact of the projectand what will be done to ensure that potential beneficiaries have the opportunity to benefit from the research
/ Refer to both Impact Summary and Pathways to Impact sections. Have the potential economic and or societal impacts been identified? Are the plans to maximise impact appropriate and justified? Make reference to the relevance and appropriateness of any beneficiaries or collaborators; and whether appropriate routes and resources have been identified for dissemination and knowledge exchange. For further guidance see
  1. Confidence
/ Please rate your confidence in your ability to evaluate societal and economic impact potential and activities.
LEADERSHIP
  1. Describe how and why you would rate the UK activity in this area and its international standing
/ What is the level of UK activity in the area & its international standing?
  1. Describe how and why you would rate the past achievements of the team and impact on the field, both nationally and internationally
/ Please comment on the:
Past effectiveness of applicant(s)
Suitability of applicant(s)/research team
Suitability of Institution/Group
Quality of leadership and management
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
  1. Comment on whether the major goals proposed over the grant period are appropriate and deliverable for the proposal
/ Is there a sensible, clearly stated management and programme plan with timescales and milestones?
Do you consider the major goals proposed over the grant period are appropriate and deliverable?
Please comment on the viability and planning
  1. Comment on the ability of the applicants to deliver the stated aims
/ Can the applicants deliver the stated aims and are they a competent team?
  1. Comment on the justification for the level of resources requested and their appropriateness to deliver the stated aims
  2. Do you have any additional comments regarding resources?
/ Please state whether the resources requested have been justified and are appropriate (including facility requests such as computing etc. Or what modifications you would recommend). Please pay particular attention to staffing and equipment.
  1. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT
/ Please provide any additional comments that you would like to be fed back to the applicant
  1. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FOR THE PEER REVIEW PANEL
/ Please give any other comments about the proposalthat you wish to beconsidered. These comments will remain confidential and will not be disclosed to the applicant.
  1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT
/ Please give your overall assessment of the application according to the following scale:
  • Fundable: The proposed project is of the highest scientific merit. It is novel and/or timely and has such potential that it will, or is likely to, make a significant contribution to the field at world level or is at the forefront within the UK and is internationally competitive. The case for support demonstrates that the proposed project is feasible, well planned and cost effective.
  • Unfundable: The science case is not compelling. The proposed research lacks originality or is not critical to any new understanding of the subject. It is either too removed from STFC's strategic plan to be funded or is not scientifically competitive.
  • Reject: The case for support cannot be accepted for one or more of the following reasons:
  • The science case is technically flawed
  • The case for resources (e.g. PDRA, other costs) has not been made

THE REFEREE
REFEREE DETAILS / YourName, Institution and email address (you will receive confirmation by email of submission).
  1. CONFIDENCE LEVEL
/ Please rate your confidence in your evaluation of the applicant and the research proposed (high/satisfactory/low)
  1. AREA OF EXPERTISE
/ Indicate your areas of particular expertise.

September 2010