Most universities have internal peer-review processes for grant applications. How can we make them work better for all involved, asks Adam Golberg in the second part of two articles on the topic.
Who should do the reviewing?
The ideal reviewer is a senior academic with a track record of success with major research funding applications and some insight into the subject area. Even at research-intensive institutions, there is a limited supply of these people and their time is valuable. This is especially true for reviewers in development-related topics because of the volume of Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) bids. So our instinct is to ask senior professors, but I wonder if a closer review by someone less senior might be more useful at times. We should certainly think beyond the usual suspects, as reviewing can be a developmental exercise.