Tagged / peer review

All you need to know about the AHRC review process

BU research

What is the review process?

As anyone submitting a proposal to a research council at BU knows, once you hut the Je-S ‘submit’ button, the proposal then gets sent to R&KEO to undertake final checks. These are all done to ensure your proposal has the best chance of success.  This is also a critical stage in the process, as we know from our contacts in the Research Councils that reviewers won’t even see an application if the proposal has not adhered to the guidance criteria.

Stage 1 of the process is where proposals are sifted by a group of staff who reject immediately any which do not meet the published eligibility criteria; either related to documentation requirements or where it does not meet the aims or criteria of the scheme.  When we return your application to you before submitting in Je-S, it is to ensure your proposal gets through this team of sifters and makes it to Panel.

One element which we often find have been overlooked in applications is matching the Case for Support headings on the attachments, with those outlined in the guidance. The sifting process may reject your application for this reason and it is therefore important you make sure they match up. The headings have been developed based on feedback from peer reviewers and so following this structure will also put you in a favourable position with them. The other stages for most grants can be found in the diagram below.

 

What do reviewers looking for in proposals?

Quality & Importance of Research Proposed

  • the proposal meets the specific aims of the scheme to which the applicant is applying
  • the project is significant and important and the  contribution it will enhance or develop creativity, insights, knowledge or understanding of the area in a national or international context
  • the research questions, issues or problems that will be addressed are defined and their importance and appropriateness specified
  • the research context and specification of why it is important that these particular questions, issues or problems are addressed is articulated
  • the appropriateness, effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed research methods and/or approach is outlined
  • the quality and importance of the applicant’s work to date is demonstrated
  • the applicant is able to monitor the project and bring it to completion as demonstrated in the application

Research Team

  • the level and balance (in terms of time and seniority) of the proposed staffing on the project is appropriate and opportunities will be made available for less experienced researchers
  • the other named participants have the appropriate experience and expertise to deliver the project.
  • the lines of responsibility and accountability are clearly articulated.
  • a realistic timetable, incorporating milestones is presented which will achieve the project’s aims and objectives within the proposed timescale
  • the applicant has demonstrated that they understand the amount of work to be involved, allocated sufficient time and resources to achieving each aspect.

Value for Money

  • the likely outcome of the research will represent value for money, and in particular the relationship between the funds that are sought and the significance and quality of the projected outcomes of the research
  • the resources requested are reasonable in the context of the proposed research.

Outputs, Dissemination & Impact

  • the dissemination methods are appropriate and effective
  • the research process is documented or recorded in a way to enable dissemination of research outcomes to the widest possible audience
  • the outputs and outcomes of the project will be highly valued and widely exploited, both in the research community and in wider contexts where they can make a difference
  • plans to increase impact are appropriate and justified, given the nature of the proposed research
  • sufficient attention has been given to who the beneficiaries of the research might be and appropriate ways to engage with them throughout the project.
  • the research and its outcomes are disseminated to as wide an audience as possible, and where appropriate to engage in communication, dissemination and exploitation activities throughout the period of the project.
  • the audiences to whom their research could be of interest are specified, and how they propose to engage with those audiences about their research.

 

How can I increase my chances of success?

Firstly, let your RKE Operations Officer know as soon as you want to apply for a scheme. They have many years’ experience of reading the eligibility criteria and guidance and can help you make sure you tick all of these boxes. They will also cost your proposal and get it approved by Legal and through the APF Quality Approval Process as well as submitting it via Je-S when the time comes.

Your proposal will automatically go through our internal peer review process (RPRS) and you will receive useful feedback on how to really strengthen this. We have a number of AHRC award holders and a reviewer on our database which will be a huge help for you. If you are a member of the Grants Academy you also have access to our successful applications to help you write yours as well as unlimited support from Dr Martin Pickard in creating a fantastic application. 

If you haven’t won much funding before, then team up with more experienced academics in your field to make a submission that way.

Finally, the best piece of advice is to dedicate enough time to writing a great application. Many of the big schemes don’t have deadlines, and those which do have these dates announced usually quite far in advance so you have plenty of time to prepare. With so many areas to cover in your proposal and to do so better than your competition in other institutions, you really can’t write these applications in a week.  A Research Grant is a very prestigious one to have on your CV and is worth dedicating the time and energy to get.

Demand management works says RCUK

BU research

I have heard one of two grumbles over the years over our mandatory internal peer review for Research Council (RCUK) proposals and this can sometimes seem like an ‘additional hurdle’ to get through in making a submission. BU is not alone in having a mandatory review process for RCUK grants and we implemented this, as did others around the UK, on the back of demand management measures initiated by some of the Research Councils (such as the EPSRC who will ban repeatedly unsuccessful applicants from making further submissions for 12 months). To help ensure no one at BU is unable to bid for the calls they wish to, we want to offer this extra support to our academic community in helping them submit the best possible application that they can.

At BU we have seen success rates with RCUK funders increase due to the utilisation of the RPRS. Today Times Higher Education announced that due to initiatives taken by BU and other institutions in reviewing applications before submission, across the board RCUK success rates for funding have risen. The ESRC responsive mode scheme for instance has gone from a 14% success rate in 2011-12 to a 16% success rate in 2012-13.

Helping ensure fewer numbers of lowe quality bids are submitted to RCUK funders facilitates a reduction in administration costs, which can then be redistributed into funding calls. This is great news for the funders and for applicants and potential applicants.

We are reviewing how the internal peer review process works at BU to make it even more useful and ever less bureaucratic to help any RCUK applicants and indeed applicants for any funding bodies. More details on this will be placed on the blog soon!

Why the RPRS is more than just another BU hoop in submitting a proposal

BU research

Undertaking internal peer review (the RPRS) at BU became mandatory for all Research Council UK (RCUK) applications over a year ago in response to many funders demand management measures (which include banning applicants with two unsuccessful proposals within a time frame from applying to that funder for 12 months). The European Commission will also bring in demand management measures for all European Research Council grants under Horizon 2020.

But the RPRS is more than just a mandatory hoop for RCUK grants. In fact, most of the applications we receive are on a voluntary basis for a range of funders and schemes and those who have undergone it once, tend to use the scheme several times because of the value it adds.  Indeed an analysis of recent RCUK submissions to the RPRS found that it has a 44% success rate when the proposals are sent off to the funder and with some finders such as the ESRC having a 15% success rate in 2012 – that is not a bad statistic!

The RPRS has been described by applicants as a ‘very valuable service’ giving a ‘positive’ experience. Not only are the comments helpful in further refining the bid, but the peer support helped eradicate the loneliness which often accompanies writing a proposal ‘[The RPRS] is a great support when writing bids – it can be a lonely business sometimes.

If you haven’t used the RPRS yet, why not give it a go for your next proposal?

 

NIHR seeks Research Funding Board members

Research news

This is a fantastic opportunity to be on a major funding review panel.  Benefits of being a member include meeting potential collaborators, learning how the assessment process works and discovering what makes a great proposal. BU’s Dr Richard Shipway is a peer reviewer for the ESRC and has written an excellent blog post on the benefits of being a peer reviewer. You can read Richard’s post here.

The NIHR Public Health Research (PHR) Programme funds research that evaluates public health interventions, providing new knowledge on the benefits, costs, acceptability and wider impacts of non-NHS interventions intended to improve the health of the public and reduce inequalities in health, including interventions in education, the built environment, transport, social care.

Members of the Research Funding Board are senior academics with a broad range of skills and experience.  The NIHR welcome applications from experts from a range of disciplines and fields, in particular:

• Impacts of the environment on health e.g. traffic/roads, housing, regeneration etc
• Statistics and trials methodology
• Older people
• Work place and health/employability
• Nutrition/obesity (adults and children)
• Mental health
• Systematic review/evidence synthesis

For further information on what the role involves and how to apply please see the PHR website. The deadline for applications is 1pm 15 November 2013.

BU is fully supportive of you becoming a reviewer, including helping with ensuring you have time to perform reviews for funding bodies.

Co-producing and co-creating with eBU

BU research, Fusion, PG research, Publishing

As I’m sure you are all aware of, co-production and co-creation are key facets of Fusion. What better way of engaging in co-production and co-creation than through pursuing publications with students?

eBU is well placed to help academics co-produce and co-create outputs with students for peer review publications. eBU is encouraging academics to act as gatekeepers who, upon marking or seeing high quality student work, will approach students with the view to asking them if they wish to take this further and publish.

Putting your work ‘out there’ is daunting enough for anyone, let alone an early career scholar or student. Primarily as a publishing forum for internal peer review, eBU is a place where these types of outputs can be constructively critiqued in a safe internal environment. This provides students and/or early career scholars with some valuable experience of opening his/her work up to review internally, before doing so in the wider world.

eBU works on the basis of immediate publication (subject to an initial quality check) and open peer review. Once published on the internal site, we aim to upload reviews within 3 weeks. Authors are then encouraged to use the comments to aid publication in an external journal. Alternatively, authors also have the option of publishing on the external eBU site. Please note that only using eBU as a forum for internal peer review (with the intention to publish externally – which we encourage!) WILL NOT ENDANGER FURTHER PUBLICATION.

With the academic year only just underway it may not be the right time to identify high quality student output and enquire if they wish to make changes and reformat any output for publication. However, can I ask staff to make all students aware of eBU. It’s a win-win situation – engaging with eBU will boost your publication rate and give students something positive to put on their CV for their chosen career path.

To access eBU, when on campus simply type ‘ebu’ into your web browser address bar.

NERC peer review college call for members 2013

BU research

I don’t need to sell you the benefit of sitting on a funder review panel as I know you are already aware of what a fantastic experience this is in terms of meeting potential collaborators, learning how the assessment process works and discovering what makes a great proposal. BU’s Dr Richard Shipway is a peer reviewer for the ESRC and recently wrote an excellent blog post on the benefits of being a peer reviewer. You can read Richard’s post here.

 

You may recall that NERC recently announced initiatives to increase confidence in peer review; these include measures to increase the status and performance of the NERC College. As a result they are currently recruiting for members of their Peer Review College with the nomination deadline of 5 August 2013.

BU is fully supportive of you becoming a reviewer, including helping with ensuring you have time to perform reviews for funding bodies. If you want to take up this opportunity, please email me and I can inform you of the BU process for this.

Pool of external bid advisers – nominations sought!

BU research

As part of the Grants Academy programme we’re looking to set up a pool of external experts who can provide reviews of drafts of funding proposals for Academy members which will help develop bid writing skills and hopefully increase our chance of winning grants. Dr Martin Pickard (who facilitates the Grants Academy workshops) will provide some of this support, particularly for EC bids, however we are also setting up a pool of external reviewers with experience in different disciplines and of different funders who can be called upon to offer their advice.

I am interested to know whether any BU academics would be willing to nominate any of their external peers to potentially be invited to join the pool of external reviewers.

Nominations should be for senor academics who are experts in their field with significant experience of winning grant funding and/or significant experience of sitting on review panels. To avoid potential conflicts of interest it would be ideal if these people are recently retired or semi-retired, however this is not essential.

If you can think of anyone who would be suitable please could you email me their details.

Coming soon….The BU Grants Academy

BU research, Guidance, Research news

On Monday, 2nd April we will be launching a brand new training programme – the BU Grants Academy – to sustain research and invest in early career researchers to boost BU’s collective research output. 

Every day this week there will be blog posts focussing on different aspects of the Grants Academy.  Today its The Overview.  To find out more, please read on………

What is the Grants Academy?

It is a development programme for academic staff, with three distinct strands:

  • Strand One:    BU-wide development and training programme linked in 2012/13 to external grant writing support in the form of a contracted bid advisor.
  • Strand Two:    Bespoke intervention for key research groups and clusters (e.g., Research Centres, BU Research Themes, etc.) based on a bespoke version of Strand One.
  • Strand Three:  Post-Award support in the form of direct mentorship for new investigators with limited experience of research management and project delivery.

How will the scheme benefit acadmic staff?

Membership of the Grants Academy will enable academic staff to:

  1. improve their understanding of the research funding environment;
  2. increase the quality of their research funding proposals;
  3. unlock staff potential, confidence and motivation;
  4. enable staff to develop the skills required to design, write and structure a competitive, fundable research proposal; and
  5. to then manage awarded contracts, effectively leading to further funding.

Want to find out more?

If you would like to find out more please contact Caroline O’Kane

On the blog tomorrow, we’ll be telling you all about Strand One.

new from NERC – demand management sanctions

Research news

The news is out today:  NERC is considering the introduction of sanctions in a bid to boost low success rates for responsive-mode grants.

NERC will continue to strongly encourage self-regulation for universities. But, current measures for reducing demand, such as limiting re-submissions, is not raising success rates as hoped.  Success rates are currently running at 16 per cent for recent standard grant proposals.

New measures may include:

  • NERC identifitying  institutions with a high number or proportion of unsuccessful submissions, meeting with them and setting targets
  • Sanctions to research organisations if they fail to reduce the number of uncompetitive proposals to agreed targets and timescales
  • Organisations to nominate a ‘designated first point of contact’ for demand management.

NERC says: The overall aim of introducing these measures is to increase success rates in NERC responsive mode schemes year on year for several years. This is likely to be a gradual process, but initial progress is expected to be achieved within two years

How to make sure your application stands the best chance of being funded:

If you are submitting a bid to NERC (or any other funder for that matter) you are strongly encouraged to work with Caroline O’Kane through BU’s internal peer review scheme (Research Proposal Review Service – RPRS). 

You can also check the Blog on a regular basis to see what proposal writing sessions are running at BU.  They are always excellent and well received.   The more people we know about who are planning on submitting a proposal to a funder the better – then we can develop some tailored support to enhance your chances of success.

Click here  to read more about NERC and Demand Management

Click here to learn more our series of blog posts on Demand Management

 

Join the ESRC as a peer reviewer

Research news

ESRC is now inviting applications for membership of its Grants Assessment Panels in the following disciplinary areas:

        • Sociology, particularly sociology of health
        • Socio-legal studies
        • Science and technology studies
        • Management and business studies, including accounting and finance
        • Economics, particularly micro-economics

This is an opportunity to work with other experienced people from across the academic, public, private and third sectors to help ensure ESRC funds high-quality research at the forefront of social and economic science whilst working to maximise the impact of the research it supports.

For further information on the vacancies and the work of the GAPs, please see the website and vacancy specification (PDF, 93Kb). For questions or queries that are not covered in the vacancy specification, please contact Gavin Salisbury at ESRC on email gavin.salisbury@esrc.ac.uk or telephone 01793 413136.

Application forms, with a short curriculum vitae (no longer than two A4 pages), should be submitted by email to gavin.salisbury@esrc.ac.uk not later than 17.00 on Wednesday 1 February 2011.

Call for Members – NERC Peer Review College

Research news

NERC invites nominations for membership and affiliate membership of the NERC Peer Review College by 27 January 2012. Those selected will make an important contribution to determining the research that NERC funds and have a pivotal role in maintaining its quality. The Council is looking for College members with a high level of expertise and experience, who are prepared to devote sufficient time and take responsibility for contributing to these key decisions.  They are asking you who you think should be representing the environmental sciences community and peer reviewing applications to the NERC by nominating yourself or a colleague for membership.  Further information and guidance on how to apply can be found on the NERC website at http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/assessment/peerreview/members-call.asp or by contacting the College team (college@nerc.ac.uk).

AHRC still seeking nominations for peer reviewers – excellent opportunity!

Research news

The AHRC are still seeking nominations for new members to be appointed to its Peer Review College (PRC) who would be able to assess proposals submitted under AHRC’s research themes. In parallel they wish to increase the capacity of the College in specific research areas.

Peer review lies at the heart of the AHRC’s operations, and they remain fully committed to the principle of peer review for the assessment of proposals to their schemes and programmes. PRC members provide expert quality reviews of proposals within their areas of expertise, which inform the AHRC’s decision making processes. As well as making an important contribution to the AHRC’s peer review processes, the experience gained by membership of the College also provides benefits to individuals, departments and higher education institutions.

BU is actively encouraging all research-active staff in relevant areas to consider putting themselves forward as peer reviewers. Being part of a peer review college for a prestigious funding body such as the AHRC has a number of significant benefits, such as:

  • it will help to raise your profile
  • it is a useful way of getting an insight into how the funder works
  • it will help you to keep abreast of what work is currently being done in your discipline, thus ensuring your teaching and research are cutting edge
  • you will gain an understanding of what it takes for an application to get funded
  • you will be in a stronger position to mentor and help your colleagues with regard to internal peer review and bid writing

BU’s Dr Richard Shipway is a peer reviewer for the ESRC and recently wrote an excellent blog post on the benefits of being a peer reviewer. You can read Richard’s post here.

Further details of the call for nominations are available on the AHRC website, available here.

Applications are sought from academics at all stages of their career and, if chosen, you will serve a four year term. Candidates must be nominated by a senior academic within the University. If you want to be nominated then send your CV to me by Friday 9 December and I will liaise with Matthew Bennett,  who will put forward nominations on behalf of BU.

How to kill your funding application

Guidance, Research news

Funding proposals are not the easiest (or quickest) thing in the world to write.

Not least for multi-tasking academics up against a wall of deadlines.

Jonathan O’Donnell, author of the most excellent Research Whisperer Blog,  has a similar job to mine – supporting the writing of funding proposals at his university.

I like him.  He has some good advice.   I found this post – its called 5  ways to kill your application. I think its worth reading. 

I hope you find it helpful too.

For information about how BU’s very own Research Proposal Review Service can support your current/next funding application, please contact Caroline O’Kane.

The AHRC are seeking nominations for peer reviewers

Research news

The AHRC are seeking nominations for new members to be appointed to its Peer Review College (PRC) who would be able to assess proposals submitted under AHRC’s research themes. In parallel they wish to increase the capacity of the College in specific research areas.

Peer review lies at the heart of the AHRC’s operations, and they remain fully committed to the principle of peer review for the assessment of proposals to their schemes and programmes. PRC members provide expert quality reviews of proposals within their areas of expertise, which inform the AHRC’s decision making processes. As well as making an important contribution to the AHRC’s peer review processes, the experience gained by membership of the College also provides benefits to individuals, departments and higher education institutions.

We are actively encouraging all research-active staff in relevant areas to consider putting themselves forward as peer reviewers. Being part of a peer review college for a prestigious funding body such as the AHRC has a number of significant benefits, such as:

  • it will help to raise your profile
  • it is a useful way of getting an insight into how the funder works
  • it will help you to keep abreast of what work is currently being done in your discipline, thus ensuring your teaching and research are cutting edge
  • you will gain an understanding of what it takes for an application to get funded
  • you will be in a stronger position to mentor and help your colleagues with regard to internal peer review and bid writing

BU’s Dr Richard Shipway is a peer reviewer for the ESRC and recently wrote an excellent blog post on the benefits of being a peer reviewer. You can read Richard’s post here.

Further details of the call for nominations are available on the AHRC website, available here.

Applications are sought from academics at all stages of their career and, if chosen, you will serve a four year term. Candidates must be nominated by a senior academic within the University. If you want to be nominated then send your CV to me and I will liaise with Matthew Bennett,  who will put forward nominations on behalf of BU.

Become an EC Evaluator to increase your chances success and earn spondoolies!

EU

Becoming an EC evaluator has many benefits – it can improve your understanding of the funding approval process, strengthen your knowledge of the schemes, enable you to understand what makes a ‘good’ and ‘bad’ proposal and can help you gain further kudos in your subject area.

Being an Evaluator is basically being a peer-reviewer for  the EC, It involves examining proposals for funding against published criteria and providing comments and recommendations to the Commission. You can still apply to the EC for funding if you are registered as an evaluator.

The number of proposals you could review depends very much on your area of expertise and while normally undertaken at home, you can also travel to Brussels to perform a review.  Unlike British funders, you will get paid a day rate (up to € 450) for your time, plus travel and subsistence expenses if these have been incurred. You also do not have to review an application just because you are requested.

So what do you have to lose? Register to become an evaluator today.

The Research Development Unit welcomes our new team member, taking over the RPRS

BU research, Research news

The RDU are delighted to introduce Caroline O’Kane as our new member of the team!

“When I’m up and running I’ll be looking after the Research Peer Review Service. At the minute you can find me in Melbury House but I will be moving to Talbot Campus before too long.

I may be new to BU but I’m not new to proposal development and bidding. I’ve worked in international development for 13 years, where I was heavily involved in the bidding process from initial concept to developing and submitting funding applications and then to managing resulting projects.

I’m not new to the area either – myself, husband (1), children (3) and chickens (2) live just down the road in Parkstone.

Over the next couple of weeks I’m looking forward to getting to grips with the RPRS. If you’re any way involved in funding applications then I’ll be introducing myself to you soon.

You can contact me on extension 61356, on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursday mornings”

Feedback, not failure…

BU research, Publishing

Prof Alan Fyall, Deputy Dean (Research and Enterprise) in the School of Tourism, discusses the experience of receiving reviewers’ comments…

After nearly 15 years of publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals I am sure I am not alone in still living in fear of emails containing the “feedback” from editors and reviewers of journals about my papers. Over the years, the inconsistency of reviewers’ comments never ceases to amaze me, while the often unhelpful and sometimes down right rude tone of some reviewers does make me sometimes beg the question …. why do I bother? After a “time out”, however, often a period of two-to-three days, upon revisiting the comments advanced I often, albeit reluctantly, accept that the two or three reviewers have probably made some good comments and that, if I calm down and just adhere to the questions raised, will generate a paper far superior to the one I first submitted. This is not always the case but more often than not reviewers do actually provide very honest, fair and helpful comments in an attempt to improve the quality of submissions. Yes, they can sometimes be pedantic, over-emphasise their own contribution and state the obvious. More often, however, they will provide a critical overview of the broad theme of the paper and its rationale, the methodology and sampling, presentation of findings and conclusions drawn, as well as an overview of the way in which the paper is organised and presented.

My advice to old and new researchers is quite simple. In the first instance, take a deep breath when opening that email, read its contents and then leave for a while and avoid at all costs a hasty and reactive response that will only make things worse. Secondly, accept that editors and reviewers are only human (well, most of them) and that what they are communicating is their views and opinions which most probably do not concur with yours and more often than not will conflict with those of other reviewers. Thirdly, take all the feedback provided and take time in amending your paper and the reply to editors and reviewers that explains exactly what changes have been made in improving the quality of your submission. Where you still disagree be constructive in your explanation and offer further insights that the reviewers may have missed in their interpretation of your work. Finally, resubmit your paper and promise to yourself that you bear no grudges against the editor and/or reviewers as you can normally guarantee that at some point in the future they will once again review your work and remember the professional manner in which you dealt with their feedback the first time. For me, after 15 years of publishing I am still learning, still amazed at some of the comments I receive and am still ……. slightly nervous about opening that email; a fear which is unlikely to vanish perhaps as we continue to learn and learn from others in our respective academic publishing journeys

The benefits of reviewing grant proposals for a research council: An insider’s perspective

Guidance

Dr Richard Shipway, Senior Lecturer in Sports Studies in the School of Tourism, is a member of the ESRC Peer Review College and Regional Editor (Europe) for the International Journal of Event and Festival Management. Here he provides an insider’s perspective to the benefits of being a reviewer…

Since 2010, I have been a member of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Peer Review College, reviewing grants in the social sciences.  This invitation was extended eighteen months ago when I was a PI (Principal Investigator) on an ESRC funded project linked to Sport Tourism and Sports Events (the STORMING Initiative).  At first I was overwhelmed and somewhat daunted by the thought of reviewing up to eight grant applications each year and slightly wary about the additional burden this would add to my existing academic workload at BU. However, upon reflection it has proved to be one of the most rewarding and important aspects of my current role as an academic at BU. It has also been an intense and somewhat steep learning curve.   

Importantly, being regularly involved with the review of grant proposals has provided opportunities to observe what constitutes both good and bad applications, and I now feel far more competent in my own ability to write a competent grant proposal along with some of the possible tactics and strategies that can be used to enhance the possibility of success. In the past eighteen months I have also been able to observe the diversity of innovative approaches that colleagues at other institutions are adopting, along with the range of multidisciplinary projects which are emerging, and how applicants creatively highlight where their research will have both economic and societal impact.

There are also additional benefits to being a member of the ESRC Peer Review College. I am fortunate enough to receive various invitations to attend briefing events and functions organised by the ESRC and other research councils.  These have proved to be good opportunities to firstly stay informed on current strategic developments, and secondly to network with academic colleagues across different disciplines and institutions from all around the UK.  I also take every opportunity to feedback any information to colleagues at BU, both centrally and at School level. Only last week I attended an event at The Royal Society in London, hosted by the ESRC where the challenges and opportunities of implementing the ESRC Delivery Plan 2011-2015 were outlined and discussed at great length.

In my opinion, an active involvement with reviewing (be it on behalf of either a research council or an academic journal) is important for several reasons: firstly, it enhances our own continued professional development; secondly it provides opportunities to be associated with particular research councils or academic journals; thirdly, an active involvement is an important addition to your CV; and fourthly, reviewing can provide opportunities to view new research before anybody else and enables us to remain up to date with emerging research trends and directions. As such, if asked to review work for a research council or an academic journal, my advice to colleagues would be to acknowledge and accept the significant time commitment involved with this process, but to grasp the opportunity for the benefits it can potentially provide.

All of the Research Councils recruit academic peer reviewers differently. If you are interested then familiarise yourself with the recruitment process and times, and keep an eye of the relevant research council website:

The European Commission is always recruiting academic reviewers. See our EU reviewer recruitment webpage for details on how to get involved.