Unless otherwise indicated grades awarded to proposals and their definitions are listed below.
For Leadership Fellows please see the Leadership Fellows Peer Review grading scale
For Follow on Fund please see the Follow on Fund for Impact and Engagement Peer Review grading scale
Work that is at the leading edge internationally, in all of the assessment criteria – scholarship, originality, quality and significance, and meets the majority of them to an exceptional level. Likely to have a significant impact on the field. The proposal’s evidence and justification are fully and consistently provided and management arrangements are clear and convincing. It should be funded as a matter of the very highest priority.
Work that is internationally excellent in all of the assessment criteria – scholarship, originality, quality and significance, and meets them to an excellent level. It will answer important questions in the field. The proposal’s evidence and justification are fully and consistently provided and management arrangements are clear and convincing. It should be funded as a matter of priority.
Work that demonstrates high international standards of scholarship, originality, quality and significance. It will advance the field of research. It meets all assessment criteria. The proposal’s evidence and justification are good and management arrangements are clear and sound. It is worthy of consideration for funding.
Work that is satisfactory in terms of scholarship and quality but lacking in international competitiveness. It is limited in terms of originality, innovation and significance and its contribution to the research field. It meets minimum requirements in terms of the assessment criteria and the proposal’s evidence and justification are adequate overall. In a competitive context, the proposal is not considered of sufficient priority to recommend for funding.
Work that is of inconsistent quality with some strengths, innovative ideas and good components, but has significant weaknesses or flaws in its conceptualisation, design, methodology and management. It is unlikely to advance the field significantly. It does not meet all scheme assessment criteria. It is not recommended for funding.
A proposal that has an unsatisfactory level of originality, quality and significance. It has limited potential to advance research within the field and may be unconvincing in terms of its management arrangements or capacity to deliver proposed activities, especially for the amount of funding being sought. It is unlikely to advance the field. It falls short of meeting the assessment criteria for the scheme. It is not suitable for funding.