Please tell us about your experienceof this website today

Checklist for an effective review

This checklist was collated from College members’ responses as to what constitutes an effective review. Reviewers may find the checklist a helpful guide for providing a high quality review.

Preparation for review

  • ensure you read the entire proposal thoroughly
  • familiarise yourself with the strategic aims of the AHRC and the aims of the scheme for the proposal you are assessing
  • be aware of the full range of grades and their descriptors at your disposal contact staff at the AHRC if anything is unclear.

Analysis

  • be realistic about your own confidence and expertise. Provide clear evidence of your own expertise in the subject area and state if you’re unsure about something
  • always provide evidence to support your observations. Use only the information provided in the application form
  • take into account the information you are being asked to provide under each review form heading. Ensure sufficient detail is provided for each one
  • give a clear assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the proposal and indicate whether these are major or minor concerns
  • provide an evaluation of the risks associated with the project
  • contextualise the proposal that you are reviewing within current work in the field, and comment on its relative importance / significance
  • identify any inconsistencies and contradictions in the proposal
  • identify issues which need clarification by the applicant (PI) in their response
  • in the case of interdisciplinary applications: do the different disciplines meet up in a coherent way?
  • provide enough information to enable a judgement on the relative quality of this proposal compared to other applications
  • be receptive to new ideas and approaches to thinking within your discipline as well as methodology.

Delivery

  • provide an impartial, objective, fair and analytical assessment of the proposal which you are reviewing
  • avoid overly negative comments and do not include any personal comments
  • make constructive criticism wherever possible, identifying how any issues could be realistically addressed by the PI
  • ensure you are providing an evaluation, not a description of the work proposed
  • ensure that the language you use is clear and jargon-free. Could your review be understood by a non-expert?
  • is your grade justified by, and consistent with, your comments?
  • could a non-expert make a final grading decision based upon your review?

Note:

The proposal you are asked to review includes a case for support. In some instances, the case for support may include a link to a web site containing information on the research proposed. Reviewers are not required to consider this additional information when providing comments on a proposal. If you do choose to look at this information, please note that it is possible that your anonymity to the applicant may be compromised.