Guidance for reviewers

The assessment process for each funding opportunity will vary. Specific details on how to carry out peer review is sent to reviewers and panel members. Read about how we make decisions for more information on the peer review process, and the guidelines provided for reviewers.

The following outlines our standard peer review process for standard grants:

• proposals are considered by two or more peer reviewers
• applicants provide a response (principal investigator response) to the comments of the peer reviewers
• proposals, reviews, and principal investigators’ responses to the reviews are considered by the assessment panel
• the panel then provide a rank ordered list of proposals in order of funding priority
• the panels’ recommendations are considered internally by BBSRC and a final decision is taken on the list of awards to be supported

Carrying out a peer review

Peer review guidance

Most research grants undergo scientific assessment of research quality by UK and overseas experts in the field from academia, government or industry. The information provided here offers reviewers with general guidance on how to complete a review for the BBSRC.

For more specific guidance on the completion of the reviewer form for an application, please read about how reviewers use the UKRI Funding Service. Specific guidance is available on the reviewer form that you are asked to complete.

Expectations of peer reviewers

To carry out peer review for BBSRC, make sure you:

• provide BBSRC, when requested, with a review by the due date specified and in accordance with the reviewer guidance in the UKRI Funding Service
• notify BBSRC when you are unable to meet a review request by declining via the Funding Service within five working days of the request, so that an alternative reviewer can be sought without delay
• adhere to and uphold UKRI’s policies, standards and guidance in support of good research practices

The following standards are relevant to your role as a reviewer.

UKRI counter fraud and bribery policy

BBSRC is committed to the practice of responsible corporate behaviour and to complying with all laws, regulations and other requirements that govern the conduct of our operations. Find out more about the UKRI counter fraud and bribery policy.

UKRI principles of assessment and decision making

The UKRI principles of assessment and decision making explains eight core principles in detail and how they may impact you when assessing proposals. They outline UKRI’s expectations and ambition for assessment processes and provide transparency to its commitment to robust decision making.

Policies and standards

View information on UKRI’s policies and standards.

San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)

Reviewers should not use journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist’s contributions. This is in line with our commitment to DORA.

In some instances, the proposal may include a link to a website containing information on the research proposed. Reviewers are not required to consider this additional information when providing comments on a proposal. If you do choose to look at this information, note that it is possible that your anonymity to the applicant may be compromised.

Using generative artificial intelligence (AI) in peer review

Reviewers and panellists are not permitted to use generative AI tools to develop their assessment. Using these tools can potentially compromise the confidentiality of the ideas that applicants have entrusted to UKRI to safeguard.

See our policy on the use of generative AI for more detail.

Reviewer guidance

Reasons for unusable reviews

BBSRC takes great care to ensure that the reviews are appropriate and of value to both the applicant and our panels. For that reason, if BBSRC feels that there are any elements of a review that do not meet its criteria, the review will not be used.

The following is a list of common reasons why the BBSRC might consider a review to be unusable.

The tone and language used by a reviewer is confrontational or emotive

BBSRC’s panels can only assess applications if peer reviews received are balanced and objective. It’s also worth remembering that the principal investigator will have sight of the peer review received as part of the right to reply process and it may prove difficult for them to respond effectively if a reviewer’s tone or language is subjective or unbalanced.

The reviewer identifies themselves within their comments (inadvertently or overtly)

While the panel is made aware of the identity of our peer reviewers, applicants are not. Anonymity of peer review is important to ensure that reviewers can express their views freely.

A reviewer’s comments are too brief

BBSRC’s decision making processes rely on expert peer review of the proposals submitted. In order to moderate a proposal effectively, our panels need to have a clear idea of the strengths and weaknesses of a proposal as identified by reviewers. Comments should be justified so that the moderating panel can make an informed decision based solely on the expert peer reviews received.

The reviewer has not addressed the areas expected for effective peer review and there is little or no critical examination of the proposal

BBSRC’s panels require expert peer review that identifies both strengths and weaknesses in order to moderate a proposal effectively. It is important that research questions, context and methodologies are considered when writing peer reviews for the BBSRC.

Declaration of interest

Please see the UK Research and Innovation policy on declarations of interest.

Additional guidance for reviewers on COVID-19

UKRI recognises that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused major interruptions and disruptions across our communities and is committed to ensuring that individual applicants and their wider team, including partners and networks, are not penalised for any disruption to their career such as breaks and delays, disruptive working patterns and conditions, the loss of ongoing work, and role changes that may have been caused by the pandemic.

When undertaking your assessment of the research project, you should consider the unequal impacts of the impact that COVID-19-related disruption might have had on the track record and career development of those individuals included in the proposal, and you should focus on the capability of the applicant and their wider team to deliver the research they are proposing.

UKRI acknowledges that it is a challenge for applicants to determine the future impacts of COVID-19 while the pandemic continues to evolve. Applicants have been advised that their applications should be based on the information available at the point of submission and, if applicable, the known application specific impacts of COVID-19 should be accounted for.

Where known impacts have occurred, these should have been highlighted in the application, including the assumptions and information at the point of submission. Applicants were not required to include contingency plans for the potential impacts of COVID-19. Requests for travel both domestically and internationally could be included in accordance with the relevant scheme guidelines, noting the above advice.

When undertaking your assessment of the research project you should assess the project as written, noting any changes arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic that the project might require in the future. These will be resolved as a post-award issue by UKRI if the project is successful. Potential complications related to COVID-19 should not affect your assessment or the score you give the project.

Please also refer to the UKRI principles of assessment and decision making.

Last updated: 8 October 2024