We publish information on the funding decisions made by our Panels so that applicants and research organisations can understand the relative position of their proposals compared with others assessed at the same meeting. Along with written feedback, this may help applicants and research organisations improve the quality of their proposals. This type of information is also published by the Research Councils.
Peer review generally consists of a two stage process:
- Applications are assessed by independent national and international scientific experts who consider the viability, scientific quality, cost-effectiveness and likely 3Rs impact of the proposal.
- The Panel assesses applications. During the meeting, proposals are discussed and scored by each member against the scoring critera, assessing both scientific quality and 3Rs impact, and taking into consideration the referees' scores and comments, the response to reviewers' comments and Panel members' opinions. At the end of the meeting applications are grouped according to the Panel's median score for the proposal. This is used as a basis for further discussion, which may take into account strategic priorities, prior to reaching final funding decisions.
For small investments or outline proposals, assessment is normally by a Panel only.
Median scores of seven and above are considered fundable, however, the funding cut-off is dependent on the available budget at any given meeting.
|Award rate of grant applications with the final decision in the financial year 2020/21|
|Funding Scheme||Number of applications received||Number of awards||Award rate (%)|
|Skills and Knowledge Transfer grant||9||5||56|
Panel outcome reports are published following each meeting - usually within four weeks. Applications are listed in numerical order within blocks according to median score groups and funding decision.
Funding decisions are the result of sets of circumstances which are unique to that occasion and it is not valid to make comparisons between different Panel meetings.
Applications which are rejected after a triage or shortlisting meeting are not discussed in Panel meetings, and therefore are not included in these lists.
Panel outcome report - Strategic Award 2015 (Replacing animal models of bovine tuberculosis) (13 KB)
Panel outcome report - Strategic Award 2016 (Refinement of the use of chronic implants in neuroscience studies with macaques) (10KB)
Panel outcome report - Strategic Award 2017 (Development of an Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) for Cardiotoxicity) (13 KB)