nhmrc – functioning of grant review panels

NHMRC – Functioning of Grant Review Panels

Martin LavinThe University of Queensland

Brisbane, Australia

andQueensland Institute of Medical Research

Brisbane, Australia

How Grant Advisory Groups (GAG) and Grant Research Panels (GRP) operate

What is expected in the application How applications are assessed

Evolution of NHMRC Assessment System

Regional Grants Interviewing Committees (RGIC)

Discipline Panels Grant Review Panels – internal review.

Review Panels

NHMRC establishes a number of panels responsible for review of EOI’s and Full Applications.

Panels known as Grant Review Panels (GRPs)

Grouped under Grant Advisory Groups (GAGs)

Grant Advisory Groups GAGs established to ensure appropriate range of expertise

available for the review of each EOI/Full Application and conflicts of interest are dealt with in an appropriate manner

Each GAG consists of a GAG Coordinator and the Chairs and Deputy Chairs of each GRP within the GAG

Role of GAG is to determine the membership of, and assign appropriate applications to, each GRP.

Applications are initially allocated to each GAG based on the Grant Type and Research Fields, Courses, and Disciplines (RFCD) selected by the applicant.

Final allocation of each application is determined by the GAG members who consider the expertise available and conflicts of interest.

Grant Advisory Groups (GAG1-6)

GAG1Biochemistry (x2)Oncology (x2)Genetics (x2)Cell Biology (x2)Cancer Biology (x2)

GAG2Immunology (x2)Microbiology (x4)Inflammation (x2)

Grant Advisory Groups (GAG)

GAG3Endocrinology (x2)Perinateorlogy/Paediatrics/Obstetrics/Reproduction (x2)Respiratory Medicine/Sleep (x2)GIT Liver/Nutrition/Diabetes/Obesity (x2)


GAG4Molecular Neuroscience (x2)Autonomic/Peripheral & Sensory Nervous

system (x2)Neurology and Brain Imaging (x2)

GAG5Public Health (x4)Geriatrics / Other Health (x2)Health Sciences/Primary Care (x2)Psychiatry/Psychology (x2)


GAG6Pharmacology (x2)Cardiovascular/Renal Sports Medicine

(x2)Surgery/Dental/Nuclear Medicine (x2)

Peer Review Timetable

Grant Review Panels

GRPs are formed within each GAG. The Research Committee appoints

members of the GRPs. Members normally hold or have recently

held a medical research grant obtained through a nationally or internationally competitive peer review process

Usually members will not be appointed for more than 3 years

Grant Review Panels

The GRP will include a Chair, Deputy Chair and up to 20 members

Number of members relative to number of applications assigned to the GRP and relevant expertise required to ensure each application can be suitably assessed

In the event of a GRP member withdrawing from the peer review process due to illness or other reasons, the NHMRC will replace the member with another member with similar expertise.

Grant Review Panels

If withdrawal occurs late in the process and a replacement member cannot be found, the NHMRC will reallocate the affected applications throughout the relevant GRP, ensuring that each application is appropriately represented.

If member is contactable after withdrawing from the process, the NHMRC may contact the member to obtain additional information if required.

GAG Coordinator

One member of a Research Grants Committee will be appointed as the GAG coordinator. Primary duties and responsibilities are to:

Nominate GRP members within their GAG Ensure appropriate allocation of grant

applications to their GAG Coordinate the distribution of applications to

the GRPs within their GAG Ensure GRP Chairs fulfill their duties and

responsibilities; and Act as the point of contact for their GAG

GRP Chair

The primary duties and responsibilities of the GRP Chairs are to: Assist the GAG coordinator in fulfilling their

duties and responsibilities Ensure that the policies and procedures

covering the relevant grant types are strictly and consistently adhered to

Approve the allocation of members to GRPs Approve the allocation of Research Grant

applications to their GRP Declare potential conflicts of interest

GRP Chair

Nominate spokespersons, as appropriate, for each application allocated to the GRP (in consultation with the Deputy Chair)

Review and endorse the GRP report on applications to ensure it accurately reflects the consensus of the GRP

Chair the GRP meetings and Ensure the GRP members are fulfilling

their duties and responsibilities

GRP Deputy Chair

The primary duties and responsibilities of the GRP Deputy Chair are to: Assist the GAG Coordinator and GRP

Chair in fulfilling their duties and responsibilities

Declare potential conflicts of interest Act as Chair for applications where the

GRP Chair has a conflict of interest and Fulfill the duties and responsibilities of a

GRP member

GRP Members

The primary duties and responsibilities of GRP members are: Declare any potential conflicts of interest Act as a Primary Spokesperson (1SP),

Secondary Spokesperson (2SP), or Tertiary Spokesperson (3SP) for those applications allocated by the GRP Chair (the number of applications allocated to each spokesperson will vary between each grant type)

For relevant applications, score EOIs as outlined in Attachment B

As a spokesperson, lead the GRP meeting discussion for each application

Assist in the preparation of the GRP report to the applicant.

Assignment of Spokespersons

Chair Have a good understanding of the

applications being considered by the GRP Ensure each member has fulfilled their

responsibilities in the lead up to the meetings

Contact all members by phone to discuss their preparation for the meetings. This will allow the Chair to provide advice to new members and identify any potential issues that may arise at the meetings

Attend a meeting of all GRP Chairs to discuss the progress of each GRP and any problems that may have arisen

Members

Members, in particular, new members, should speak with the Chair or other experienced members and seek advice on what is expected of members at the meeting

Inform the Chair and Secretariat of any issues they believe may arise during the meetings

In conjunction with the 2nd Spokesperson and 3rd Spokesperson prepare a draft GRP Report for each application assigned to you as 1st Spokesperson. This draft report is to be provided to the Chair and Secretariat prior to the GRP meeting

Prepare thorough speaking notes for each application assigned to them as a Spokesperson

Read all Full Applications to be reviewed by the GRP.

Review Format

Following is the process for the review of each application: Chair to announce the application

including the title, institution and investigator names

Members will declare conflicts of interest and where appropriate, leave the room

Criteria for Assessment

Significance and Innovation Scientific Quality Track Record

Review Format

1SP to comment on the application The 1SP will comment on the application

including a summary of the proposed research

Where an application has received additional review by the IHRP or the LSCTC, an IHRP/LSCTC member will be present to comment on the application

The 1SP will nominate the category they consider most appropriate for the application

Review Format

2SP & 3SP to comment on the application The 2SP & 3SP will provide additional

comments on the application The 2SP & 3SP will highlight their

agreement/disagreement with the view of the 1SP.

The 2SP & 3SP is to nominate the category they consider most appropriate for the application.

All Members to Discuss the Applications

The Chair will open discussion to all members of the GRP

Members may provide additional comment on aspects of the application or ask questions of the Spokespersons

Voting by Members

All members, excluding the Chair, are to nominate a Category for the application in a secret ballot

Any member, who intends voting more than one Category away from the 1SP, must declare this to the GRP.

The Secretary will collect the ballot sheets and determine:

Category: the mode of the votes Rating: the mean of the votes recorded to

two decimal places Recommending budgets Combining applications

Final Ranking of Applications

On the final day of the GRP meeting, the panel is required to conduct the final ranking of those applications that fall into the category(s) nominated by the Research Grants Committee

The purpose of the of final ranking is to ensure applications in the nominated category(s) are ranked from “best-in-category” to “least-competitive-in-category” and that no applications within the nominated category(s) have the same score

Category Descriptors

Highest International Quality and Research Performance [7]

It is anticipated that only 1-5% of applications will fall into this category

Significance and Innovation. The planned work addresses an issue of utmost importance to human health and will translate into fundamental outcomes in the science and practice of clinical medicine or public health.

It will be published in journals of the highest impact factor and will be the subject of invited plenary presentations at international meetings, often with relevance across several fields.


Track Record. Applications in this category are generally from the most outstanding researchers in the country. They have strong international reputations or are well on the way to developing them.

Scientific Quality. The proposal is lucid in its objectives, exemplary in design and certain to be accomplished.


Highly Competitive [6] The Panel regards these applications as in the

“absolutely must fund” category It is ancipated that 5-10% of applications will fall

into this category with a maximum of 10% in categories 6 & 7

Significance and Innovation. The planned work addresses an issue of major importance to human health. It will be published in journals of the highest impact factor for the field and could be the subject of invited plenary presentations at international and national meetings. The work is innovative with respect to the question being addressed and the approach to it.


Track Record. The applicants have a record of achievement, relative to opportunity, that places them in the top 10-20% of peers and have a growing international reputation. One or more of the CIs are frequently on the stage at international specialty meetings as leaders in their field, or as emerging leaders.

Scientific Quality. The proposal has clarity of purpose and a near-flawless design. There is a high probability of successful accomplishment.


Excellent [5] The Panel regards these applications as in

the “strong desire to fund” category It is anticipated that approximately 15% of

applications will fall into this category Significance and Innovation. The planned

work addresses an issue of considerable importance to human health. It will be published in the top two or three journals for the field and could be the subject of invited plenary presentations at national specialty meetings. The work contains at least one innovative idea.


Track Record. The applicants have a record of achievement, relative to opportunity, that places them well above average for their peers. They have a growing national reputation and their work appears frequently at national meetings.

Scientific Quality. The proposal has clarity of design, and any reservations are minor and unlikely to prevent successful outcome.


Good [4] The Panel regards these applications as in

the “fundable” category, budgetary restrictions aside

It is anticipated that approximately 25% of applications will fall into this category

Significance and Innovation. The planned work addresses an issue of some importance to human health. It will be published in middle-ranking to major journals for the field. The work may have some novel aspects, while others underpin or extend existing knowledge. There are minor concerns about successful completion.


Track Record. The applicants have a solid record of achievement, relative to opportunity. One or more of the CIs has an existing or emerging national reputation, albeit in a niche area.

Scientific Quality. The proposal is sound, but has several areas of minor concern in experimental design or feasibility.


Satisfactory [3] It is anticipated that approximately 50% of

applications will fall into categories 1,2 or 3

This category includes all applications which, budgetary restrictions aside, are fundable, based on a satisfactory research approach and design. The GRP will be confident that the applicants will be able to undertake the research. However, on balance the application is one that is no competitive in the NHMRC round this year.


Marginal [2] These applications display a number of

good features but are not competitive


Poor [1] Unfundable grants

Project Application - Synopsis

Overall aim (Specific Aims) Hypothesis Background (Progress) Research Plan (Outcomes and Significance)

Main Body of Application

Overall aim – Specific aims – 0.5 page Hypothesis – Background – 2 pages Preliminary data – 2-3 pages

Research Plan

(Preamble to put into context) Aim 1 as stated previously Subsections (include on page 1) Aim 2 etc Outcome Significance References – 1 page

Significant Scientific Achievements

1996 – 2006 (1 page) Overall comment on research interests Dot points of achievement (Reference)

Other Achievements

Invites to National/International Meetings Committee Chair Prizes Awards Publications (5 years) Progress Reports

NHMRC Website Linkage Information

2007 Peer Review GuidelinesGo to:

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/funding/apply/granttype/prodevapply.htmScroll down to Download Research Grants Peer Review Guidelines

Download Research Grant Funding Policy pages 26-33 Attachment B

nhmrc – functioning of grant review panels

Health & Medicine