Following the wide-ranging consultation on peer review published in 2007 by Research Councils UK and further advice from our Council, we recently announced some new measures to help alleviate pressure on all involved in our peer review process.
The new measures concerned changing the rules on the resubmission of proposals and the introduction of a temporary 12-month exclusion for repeatedly unsuccessful applicants.
Feedback
Constructive feedback from our communities and stakeholders on the new measures indicated that there was significant support for safeguarding peer review by modifying submission behaviour, but some concerns regarding the detailed implementation of the proposed approach to repeatedly unsuccessful applicants.
After careful consideration, we have therefore made the following amendments in implementing this aspect of our published policy.
Policy for Repeatedly Unsuccessful Applicants
We will now allow investigators more time to help them adjust their submission behaviour before any restriction in applying to EPSRC for funding is introduced. The measures will now take effect from April 2010.
In addition, rather than being completely excluded from applying to EPSRC, investigators who meet the criteria will be permitted to submit one application (as Principal Investigator or Co-investigator) during the 12-month period.
The criteria used to determine repeatedly unsuccessful applicants remain the same - applying to researchers (listed as the principal investigator on a proposal) who have:
- Three or more proposals within a two-year period ranked in the bottom half of a funding prioritisation list or rejected before panel (including administrative rejects), AND
- An overall personal success rate of less than 25% over the same two year period.
The two year period is from the date on the letter the applicant receives informing them of the outcome of their proposals (i.e. the date the decision is made).
During the 12-month period when a researcher is restricted in their application behaviour, we will ask institutions to take appropriate actions to review the researcher’s submission strategy. The details of this will be decided on a case-by-case basis by the institution and individual but, for some, this may be in the form of mentoring.
Policy on Uninvited Resubmissions
There will be no change to the policy on resubmissions. As of 1 April 2009 EPSRC has no longer accepted uninvited resubmissions of proposals.
Effects of the Amendments
Investigators will now have almost a year to consider and modify their submission strategies to EPSRC before the policy takes effect. By allowing the submission of one proposal we also ensure that the opportunity to apply for funding remains available to all eligible investigators.
These amendments will help to minimise the risk of any unintended consequences and assist those researchers affected by the policy while also retaining our objective - changing submission behaviour to safeguard peer review.
Further work on submission strategies
We will also continue to look at different ways to develop good submission strategies across all communities and institutions we fund by:
- Working closely with institutions to identify and share effective approaches to developing proposals and submission strategies.
- Examining ways to increase the flow of information between EPSRC and the universities about success rates by institution and by department.
- Using forums such as study days and college training days to promote best practice behaviour.
We value the feedback from all our stakeholders and want to help all research communities secure funding for projects to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We will carefully monitor the effect of all new measures introduced to help alleviate pressure on peer review as part of an ongoing process to help us maintain and further develop a world-class research base.
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
Why the change?
We have made these adjustments to address concerns raised by the community, for example, the retrospective nature of its implementation. We’ve made bold changes to protect peer review, but we’re not an insensitive organisation and if we can make amendments to help researchers whilst ensuring the overall policy is still effective, then that’s in everyone’s interest.
Has this policy been watered down so much it is ineffective?
No. We are confident that these adjustments will assist those researchers who might be affected by the policy by giving them time to consider their approach to proposals and offering them a ‘safety net’ by allowing a single submission. We can do this while retaining the purpose of the policy - changing submission behaviour to safeguard peer review. We believe the policy will still safeguard peer review.
Why didn't you consult more widely in the first place and avoid all this fuss?
The consultation was wide ranging and very comprehensive with a full review published by Research Councils UK in 2007. It’s not surprising that there was a great deal more feedback following the announcement of the policy. We’ve listened carefully and responded with sensible adjustments to help those affected.
Doesn’t the introduction of this policy suggest that the peer review system itself is flawed?
No. We make all our funding decisions based on expert advice so peer review is at the heart of our business. We’re confident that it is a robust, transparent and equitable system that ensures we prioritise those proposals that are most likely to have the greatest impact on society. These changes help peer review to be as effective as it can be.
What will EPSRC be doing over the next 12 months to help change submission behaviours?
We want to help individuals have the best possible chance to achieve funding for their research. We will look at ways to promote best practice in submission strategy across all the communities we fund and will work closely with institutions to identify applicants most likely to be affected by this policy. A series of measures are currently being put together including study days and college training days to promote best practice behaviour.
More information
For more information, see: