MAHSC Internal Peer Review for NIHR RfPB applications
We are pleased to announce our 5th round of the MAHSC Internal Peer Review for NIHR RfPB applications. This round will be reviewing applications for the Friday 21st September 2012 deadline.
The aim of the Internal Peer Review is to enhance the competitiveness of applications from MAHSC members, improving quality by providing critical evaluations of applications in final draft stage.
The virtual Internal Peer Review Panel is made up of 17 Manchester researchers from different disciplines with relevant RfPB experience. The panel will be co-ordinated by Professor Colin Sibley and Brenda Johnson in the CMFT R&I Division.
Submission of draft RfPB applications to the Internal Peer Review system will be compulsory for researchers (CMFT or University employed) conducting research within CMFT. Divisional Research Managers must be involved at an early stage in the preparation of applications to ensure that all finance streams and details are correct.
The internal review process will be carried out as follows:-
- PIs should work with their Divisional Research Manager to prepare an application.
- All paperwork, including a completed draft grant application form, should then be submitted electronically to Brenda Johnson (firstname.lastname@example.org), no later than Monday 13th August 2012
- The proposal will be sent out to appropriate Panel reviewers who will provide comments within 14 working days.
- Anonymised feedback will be sent to the PI and Divisional Research Manager in a timely fashion, no later than Tuesday 4th September 2012.
- PIs and DRMs can then make revisions to the proposal in light of the reviewers’ comments.
The dates above are the final dates for submission to the internal peer review process and have been set to allow sufficient time for applicants to incorporate any necessary changes.
If your application is ready for review at an earlier date please do submit your proposal and we will endeavour to arrange early peer review.
This procedure should bring about an increase in quality of proposals and with it higher success rates. The impact and user friendliness of the internal peer review procedure will continue to be monitored and changes made where appropriate.
We welcome feedback on this scheme. Please send your comments to Colin Sibley via Brenda Johnson (email@example.com).