Assessment criteria

The assessment of any research proposal is based on three core criteria:

Importance

How important are the questions, or gaps in knowledge, that are being addressed?

Scientific potential

What are the prospects for good scientific progress?

Resources requested

Are the funds requested essential for the work, and do the importance and scientific potential justify funding on the scale requested? Does the proposal represent good value for money?

We also ask reviewers to consider other aspects of the research, including the potential impact and pathways to achieving this, ethical issues, appropriate use of animals and human tissue, methodology and experimental design and data management plans.

MRC now requires sex to be justified in the experimental design of grant applications involving animals, and human and animal tissues and cells from September 2022 as part of the new sex in experimental design requirement.

When undertaking your assessment of the research, you should consider the unequal impacts that COVID-19-related disruption described by the applicants might have had on the research, track record and career development of those individuals included in the proposal, see Other considerations when reviewing.

Each of the different funding schemes we operate will have a set of more detailed criteria and you should read and consider the set for the scheme you are reviewing for. The scheme will be specified within the proposal form.

Research grant assessment criteria

Importance

How important are the research questions, or gaps in knowledge, that would be addressed?

Is the level of innovation likely to lead to significant new understanding?

Scientific potential

Research quality

What are the prospects for good scientific progress?

How convincing and coherent is the management strategy proposed?

Robust methodology and experimental design should be at the centre of any proposal to aid reproducibility of research findings. Has the applicant clearly set out and justified the following:

• measures for avoidance of bias (for example, blinding, randomisation)
• number of experimental and control groups and sample size per group
• how the sample size was calculated, showing power calculations and including justification of effect size
• overview of the planned statistical analyses in relation to the primary outcomes to be assessed
• frequency of measurements and interventions to be used
• circumstances in which power calculations are not appropriate to determine sample size.

How well have project risks been identified, and will they be mitigated?

Research environment and people

Consider any disruptive and unequal impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

How suitable is the investigator group and can they deliver the proposed research? Consider the track record of individuals in their fields as appropriate and have realistic expectations. Reviewers should take account of preprints in considering applications, noting the content of the papers, not where they, or subsequent peer reviewed papers, are published.

How suitable is the environment where the proposed research will take place? Please comment on the level of commitment of the host research organisation to supporting the proposed research and whether appropriate facilities will be available to the researchers.

Impact

What is the potential economic and societal impact of the proposed research? Comment on:

• identification of realistic potential improvements to human or population health
• contribution to relieving disease and disability burden and improving quality of life
• identification of potential impacts of research and plans to deliver these.

Ethics

Are there any ethical or research governance issues? Please comment on:

• whether the proposed research is ethically acceptable
• any ethical issues that need separate consideration
• the appropriateness of ethical review and research governance considerations
• any potential adverse consequences for humans, animals or the environment and whether these risks have been addressed satisfactorily in the proposal.

Data management plan

Does the data management plan indicate whether the applicants have (or are likely to have) a sound plan for managing the research data funded through the award? Take account of:

• the types, scale and complexity of data being (or to be) managed
• the likely long-term value for further research, including by sharing data
• the anticipated information security and ethics requirements.

MRC industry collaboration framework

Any research application involving a collaboration with one or more industrial partners (contributing either in cash or in kind) is handled by MRC as a MRC industry collaboration framework (ICF).

All ICF applications will be identifiable to reviewers as they will have ‘ICF’ at the start of the project title and will have a completed ICF form and ICF company partner letter of support.

The board or panel will make a decision on whether or not to support a proposal submitted via the ICF based on:

• the appropriateness of the partnership between the collaborative partners
• whether that in the absence of the requested funding and the collaboration the planned research could not be undertaken, or that it could not be undertaken to the quality level or timescale proposed
• if the in-kind costs provided by the industry partner have been costed appropriately.

The panel or board will also be asked to raise any concerns about any potential conflicts of interest that have not been addressed and if there are concerns with the intellectual property sharing arrangements that have not been addressed by MRC and LifeArc.

The panel or board may also challenge the developmental status of the project, Basic verses Applied, as set out in the ICF form and checked by LifeArc.

Research involving cohort resources

Any research proposal involving a cohort.

What new health research questions or hypotheses will it be possible to answer over the next five to ten years using the cohort resource?

Why can this science be addressed using this cohort above other resources?

What does this cohort offer that other cohorts do not (nationally and internationally) and how does it relate to other relevant cohorts? Applicants should either list the assets (measures, specimens, population group) as an annex, or reference the cohort website.

What are the plans for establishing the cohort as a resource – how is it, or will it be, used by the wider research community?

Resources requested

Are the funds requested essential for the work and justified by the importance and scientific potential of the research?

Is the applicant’s stated time commitment to the work appropriate and sufficient?

Does the proposal demonstrate value for money in terms of the resources requested?

Is any animal use fully justified in terms of need, species, number, conformance to guidelines?

Research involving cohort resources

Applicants must be clear which costs relate to de novo data collection, analysis of new data and maintenance or use of existing data.

New Investigator Research Grant (NIRG) assessment criteria

Importance

How important are the research questions, or gaps in knowledge, that would be addressed?

Is the level of innovation likely to lead to significant new understanding?

Scientific potential

Research quality

What are the prospects for good scientific progress?

How convincing and coherent is the management strategy proposed?

Robust methodology and experimental design should be at the centre of any proposal to aid reproducibility of research findings. Has the applicant clearly set out and justified the following:

• measures for avoidance of bias (for example, blinding, randomisation)
• number of experimental and control groups and sample size per group
• how the sample size was calculated, showing power calculations and including justification of effect size
• overview of the planned statistical analyses in relation to the primary outcomes to be assessed
• frequency of measurements and interventions to be used
• circumstances in which power calculations are not appropriate to determine sample size.

How well have project risks been identified, and will they be mitigated?

Research environment and people

Consider any disruptive and unequal impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Is the applicant capable of becoming an independent principal investigator and are they now ready to take the next step towards that goal? Find out more about the skills and experience needed to win support.

Has the applicant demonstrated that they will direct the proposed research and be actively engaged in carrying it through, considering research experience, supervisory experience and publications as appropriate? Reviewers should take account of preprints in considering applications, noting the content of the papers, rather than where they or subsequent peer reviewed papers are published.

Does the individual have the potential to progress to securing further grant support (for example, MRC research grant funding) at the end of this award? Do they have clear research plans that are distinct from their current group or leader? Do they cite outputs from their research experience to date to demonstrate their readiness to develop?

Is the host research organisation providing an appropriate career structure and support to facilitate the transition to independence? This should be detailed in a letter of support from the research organisation.

Are the collaborators well-chosen?

Impact

What is the potential economic and societal impact of the proposed research? Comment on:

• identification of realistic potential improvements to human or population health
• contribution to relieving disease or disability burden and improving quality of life
• identification of potential impacts of research and plans to deliver these.

Ethics

Are there any ethical or research governance issues? Comment on:

• whether the proposed research is ethically acceptable
• any ethical issues that need separate consideration
• the appropriateness of ethical review and research governance considerations
• any potential adverse consequences for humans, animals or the environment and whether these risks have been addressed satisfactorily in the proposal.

Data management plan

Does the data management plan indicate whether the applicants have (or are likely to have) a sound plan for managing the research data funded through the award? Take account of:

• the types, scale and complexity of data being (or to be) managed
• the likely long-term value for further research including by sharing data
• the anticipated information security and ethics requirements.

MRC industry collaboration framework

Any research application involving a collaboration with one or more industrial partners (contributing either in cash or in kind) is handled by MRC as a MRC industry collaboration framework (ICF).

All ICF applications will be identifiable to reviewers as they will have ‘ICF’ at the start of the project title and will have a completed ICF form and ICF company partner letter of support.

The board or panel will make a decision on whether or not to support a proposal submitted via the ICF based on:

• the appropriateness of the partnership between the collaborative partners
• whether that in the absence of the requested funding and the collaboration the planned research could not be undertaken, or that it could not be undertaken to the quality level or timescale proposed
• if the in-kind costs provided by the industry partner have been costed appropriately.

The panel or board will also be asked to raise any concerns about any potential conflicts of interest that have not been addressed and if there are concerns with the intellectual property sharing arrangements that have not been addressed by MRC and LifeArc.

The panel or board may also challenge the developmental status of the project, Basic verses Applied, as set out in the ICF form and checked by LifeArc.

Research involving cohort resources

Any research proposal involving a cohort.

What new health research questions or hypotheses will it be possible to answer over the next five to ten years using the cohort resource?

Why can this science be addressed using this cohort above other resources?

What does this cohort offer that other cohorts do not (nationally and internationally) and how does it relate to other relevant cohorts? Applicants should either list the assets (measures, specimens, population group) as an annex or reference the cohort website.

What are the plans for establishing the cohort as a resource – how is it, or will it be, used by the wider research community?

Resources required

Are the funds requested essential for the work and justified by the importance and scientific potential of the research?

Is the applicant’s stated time commitment to the work appropriate and sufficient?

Does the proposal demonstrate value for money in terms of the resources requested?

Is any animal use fully justified in terms of need, species, number, conformance to guidelines?

Research involving cohort resources

Applicants must be clear which costs relate to de novo data collection, analysis of new data and maintenance or use of existing data.

Programme grant assessment criteria

Read how we assess programme grant applications.

Partnership grant assessment criteria

Read how we assess partnership grant applications.

Developmental Pathways Funding Scheme (DPFS) assessment criteria

Importance

Need and solution

Does the identified need exist?

If the need is not significant now, will it become so in the future?

Is the need met or unmet? If unmet, is it likely to be unmet at the time the proposed solution is in place?

Would meeting this need significantly reduce disease burden, provide a valuable commercial opportunity or alleviate an important development bottleneck?

Is the proposed solution reasonable?

Could the proposed solution or components thereof meet other significant needs?

Competitiveness

Has the applicant identified the key competing solutions and their status or are you aware of other similar or complementary research underway elsewhere?

Has the applicant identified the key competitive advantages of their proposed solution?

How likely is it that the proposed solution, if achieved, would be widely adopted?

Scientific potential

Rationale

Is there a good medical or scientific rationale for the project?

Is there a reasonable body of evidence to support the proposed rationale?

Objective and approach

Does the proposal duplicate research and development efforts taking place in industry?

Is the proposed approach an effective way of meeting the plan’s objectives and is it based on a good scientific rationale?

How innovative is the plan, or is it a tried and tested approach?

Use of laboratory animals – where appropriate:

• Could the proposed research work be carried out using approaches or techniques that avoid the use of animals?
• Have the applicants fully justified the use of animals and the proposed species?
• Is the number of animals appropriate?
• Where the proposed research involves the use of primates – does the establishment comply with the NC3Rs’ Guidelines on primate accommodation, care and use 2007?

If relevant, is the project appropriately statistically powered?

Are the proposed plans for disseminating the results of the research appropriate and adequate?

Project plan

Is the project plan sufficient in comparison to the complexity of the project?

Does the plan propose reasonable go and no-go milestones? Are the milestone timings appropriate and are the success criteria necessary and sufficient to judge progression?

Are the proposed probabilities of milestones being met reasonable?

Collaboration and outsourcing – where appropriate:

• Do the contributions made by the collaborating parties contracted to undertake the outsourced work enable the project to be delivered or enable it to be delivered to the required quality or within the required time?
• Would the proposed work be undertaken or undertaken to the required quality or within the required time in the absence of the requested funding?
• Are potential conflicts of interest between the parties acceptable and are they being appropriately managed?

Project and risk management

Do the applicants have, or likely will have, the necessary project management experience to deliver the plan?

Has the individual or group established a high-quality track record in the field?

Where the proposal embarks on work in a field new to the applicants, or where it is a first funding proposal, is there a firm foundation from which to take the work forward?

How well does the work fit with other relevant research pursued by the applicants?

Have the applicants identified the key project risks and reasonably judged their likelihood of occurrence and severity of impact?

Is the proposed risk management approach appropriate?

Data management plan

Does the data management plan indicate whether the applicants have (or are likely to have) a sound plan for managing the research data funded through the award? Take account of:

• the types, scale and complexity of data being (or to be) managed
• the likely long-term value for further research including by sharing data
• the anticipated information security and ethics requirements.

Impact

What is the potential economic and societal impact of the proposed research, including:

• identification of realistic potential improvements to human or population health
• contribution to relieving disease or disability burden and/or improving quality of life
• identification of potential impacts of research and plans to deliver these.

MRC industry collaboration framework

Any research application involving a collaboration with one or more industrial partners (contributing either in cash or in kind) is handled by MRC as a MRC industry collaboration framework (ICF).

All ICF applications will be identifiable to reviewers as they will have ‘ICF’ at the start of the project title and will have a completed ICF form and ICF company partner letter of support.

The board or panel will make a decision on whether or not to support a proposal submitted via the ICF based on:

• the appropriateness of the partnership between the collaborative partners
• whether that in the absence of the requested funding and the collaboration the planned research could not be undertaken, or that it could not be undertaken to the quality level or timescale proposed
• if the in-kind costs provided by the industry partner have been costed appropriately.

The panel or board will also be asked to raise any concerns about any potential conflicts of interest that have not been addressed and if there are concerns with the intellectual property sharing arrangements that have not been addressed by MRC and LifeArc.

The panel or board may also challenge the developmental status of the project, Basic verses Applied, as set out in the ICF form and checked by LifeArc.

Resources requested

Resource requirements and environment

Has the team identified and secured reasonable access to necessary resources and skills?

For principal investigators and project managers, is the requested time consistent with their proposed involvement; necessary or sufficient for the successful management of the research; and a realistic expectation of the time they could make available?

Are the number, skills and experience of requested staff appropriate for the work described?

Is the budget realistic for the scale and complexity of the project?

Are project costs that will be met by sources other than MRC clearly identified?

Have the applicants set out a clear and reasonable case for the requested levels of staffing and overall resources?

Has the host research organisation demonstrated commitment to supporting the work?

Does the project make good use of available clinical infrastructure (BRC/Us, CRFs, patient cohorts) where appropriate?

Does the proposal make appropriate use of available core DPFS portfolio resources?

Taking into account the expected benefits of the work proposed and the level of resources requested, does the proposal promise good value for money?

Pre-doctoral Fellowship assessment criteria

For example, the Clinical Research Training Fellowship (CRTF).

Importance

Comment on the importance of the research, including the:

• strength of medical or scientific case
• level of innovation and whether this is likely to lead to significant new understanding.

Scientific potential

Applicant

Consider any disruptive and unequal impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Comment on the applicant, considering their:

• track record and achievements to date, as appropriate with realistic expectations – reviewers should take account of preprints in considering applications, noting the content of the papers, rather than where they or subsequent peer reviewed papers are published
• expertise and skill set
• ability to carry out the proposed work; does the applicant have adequate research experience to undertake this work?
• potential for the future; is the applicant committed to a career in academic medicine?

Is the applicant at the appropriate level for this fellowship?

Do you think the applicant has played a significant role in the design of the project and the writing of the research proposal?

Project and training

Robust methodology and experimental design should be at the centre of any proposal to aid reproducibility of research findings. Has the applicant clearly set out and justified the following:

• measures for avoidance of bias (for example, blinding, randomisation)
• number of experimental and control groups and sample size per group
• how the sample size was calculated, showing power calculations and including justification of effect size
• overview of the planned statistical analyses in relation to the primary outcomes to be assessed
• frequency of measurements or interventions to be used
• circumstances in which power calculations are not appropriate to determine sample size.

Comment on the value of the proposed training plans including the proposed placements or collaborations.

Environment

Comment on the suitability of the research centre where the proposed fellowship is to be based, including:

• scientific impact in the field
• appropriateness for the work proposed
• level of commitment from supervisors, mentors and host institution
• opportunities for training and career development actively identified and supported.

Ethics

Is the proposed research ethically acceptable?

Are there any ethical issues that need separate consideration?

Are the ethical review and research governance arrangements appropriate?

Are there any potential adverse consequences for humans, animals or the environment and are these risks addressed satisfactorily in the proposal?

Data management plan

Does the data management plan indicate whether the applicants have (or are likely to have) a sound plan for managing the research data funded through the award? Take into account:

• the types, scale and complexity of data being (or to be) managed
• the likely long-term value for further research, including by sharing data
• the anticipated information security and ethics requirements.

Impact

What is the potential economic and societal impact of the proposed research? Comment on the:

• identification of realistic potential improvements to human or population health
• contribution to relieving disease or disability burden and/or improving quality of life
• identification of potential impacts of research and plans to deliver these.

MRC industry collaboration framework

Any research application involving a collaboration with one or more industrial partners (contributing either in cash or in kind) is handled by MRC as a MRC industry collaboration framework (ICF).

All ICF applications will be identifiable to reviewers as they will have ‘ICF’ at the start of the project title and will have a completed ICF form and ICF company partner letter of support.

The board or panel will make a decision on whether or not to support a proposal submitted via the ICF based on:

• the appropriateness of the partnership between the collaborative partners
• whether that in the absence of the requested funding and the collaboration the planned research could not be undertaken, or that it could not be undertaken to the quality level or timescale proposed
• if the in-kind costs provided by the industry partner have been costed appropriately.

The panel or board will also be asked to raise any concerns about any potential conflicts of interest that have not been addressed and if there are concerns with the intellectual property sharing arrangements that have not been addressed by MRC and LifeArc.

The panel or board may also challenge the developmental status of the project, Basic verses Applied, as set out in the ICF form and checked by LifeArc.

Research involving cohort resources

Any research proposal involving a cohort.

What new health research questions or hypotheses will it be possible to answer over the next five to ten years using the cohort resource?

Why can this science be addressed using this cohort above other resources?

What does this cohort offer that other cohorts do not (nationally and internationally) and how does it relate to other relevant cohorts? Applicants should either list the assets (measures, specimens, population group) as an annex or reference the cohort website.

What are the plans for establishing the cohort as a resource – how is it, or will it be, used by the wider research community?

Resources requested

Are the funds requested essential and justified by the importance and scientific potential of the research? Pre-doctoral applicants are not eligible for FEC. The Research Training Support Grant (up to £20,000 per year) should be fully justified by the applicant.

Does the proposal demonstrate value for money in terms of the resources requested?

Is any animal use fully justified in terms of need, species, number, conformance to guidelines?

Research involving cohort resources

Applicants must be clear which costs relate to de novo data collection, analysis of new data and maintenance or use of existing data.

Post-doctoral Fellowship assessment criteria

For example, the Skills Development Fellowship, Career Development Award (CDA), Clinician Scientist Fellowship (CSF), Senior Non-Clinical Fellowship (SNCF), Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCF).

Importance

Comment on the importance of the research, including the:

• strength of medical or scientific case
• timeliness of the proposals; is it important to pursue this topic now? For example: does the proposal capitalise on a new advance, offering the UK the possibility of an international lead; does it relate to a new or developing healthcare need; does it exploit a “window of opportunity”, for example, for the introduction of a new clinical development into practice?
• level of innovation and whether this is likely to lead to significant new understanding.

Is the proposal high risk, high pay-off? If so, how?

Is the proposal internationally competitive?

Scientific potential

Applicant

Consider any disruptive and unequal impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Comment on the applicant, considering their:

• track record and achievements to date, as appropriate with realistic expectations – reviewers should take account of preprints in considering applications, noting the content of the papers, rather than where they or subsequent peer reviewed papers are published
• expertise and skill set; how appropriate is the expertise of the applicant to the proposed area of research?
• ability to carry out the proposed work
• potential for the future; does the applicant have the potential to progress to securing major MRC support or similar support from other funders either during or by the end of the fellowship?

Is the applicant at the appropriate level for this fellowship?

Project and training

Robust methodology and experimental design should be at the centre of any proposal to aid reproducibility of research findings. Has the applicant clearly set out and justified the following:

• measures for avoidance of bias (for example, blinding, randomisation)
• number of experimental and control groups and sample size per group
• how the sample size was calculated, showing power calculations and including justification of effect size
• overview of the planned statistical analyses in relation to the primary outcomes to be assessed
• frequency of measurements or interventions to be used
• circumstances in which power calculations are not appropriate to determine sample size.

Comment on the value of the proposed training plans including the proposed placements or collaborations.

Has the work already been done or is it being done elsewhere? How persuasive is the case that earlier work needs to be replicated or extended to another system?

Is the fellowship applied for the most appropriate form of support in this case?

Environment

Comment on the suitability of the research centre where the proposed fellowship is to be based, including:

• scientific impact in the field
• appropriateness for the work proposed
• level of commitment from supervisors, mentors and host institution
• opportunities for training and career development actively identified and supported.

Ethics

Is the proposed research ethically acceptable?

Are there any ethical issues that need separate consideration?

Are the ethical review and research governance arrangements appropriate?

Are there any potential adverse consequences for humans, animals or the environment and are these risks addressed satisfactorily in the proposal?

Data management plan

Does the data management plan indicate whether the applicants have (or are likely to have) a sound plan for managing the research data funded through the award? Take into account:

• the types, scale and complexity of data being (or to be) managed
• the likely long-term value for further research, including by sharing data
• the anticipated information security and ethics requirements?

Impact

What is the potential economic and societal impact of the proposed research? Comment on the:

• identification of realistic potential improvements to human or population health
• contribution to relieving disease or disability burden and/or improving quality of life
• identification of potential impacts of research and plans to deliver these.

MRC industry collaboration framework

Any research application involving a collaboration with one or more industrial partners (contributing either in cash or in kind) is handled by MRC as a MRC industry collaboration framework (ICF).

All ICF applications will be identifiable to reviewers as they will have ‘ICF’ at the start of the project title and will have a completed ICF form and ICF company partner letter of support.

The board or panel will make a decision on whether or not to support a proposal submitted via the ICF based on:

• the appropriateness of the partnership between the collaborative partners
• whether that in the absence of the requested funding and the collaboration the planned research could not be undertaken, or that it could not be undertaken to the quality level or timescale proposed
• if the in-kind costs provided by the industry partner have been costed appropriately.

The panel or board will also be asked to raise any concerns about any potential conflicts of interest that have not been addressed and if there are concerns with the intellectual property sharing arrangements that have not been addressed by MRC and LifeArc.

The panel or board may also challenge the developmental status of the project, Basic verses Applied, as set out in the ICF form and checked by LifeArc.

Research involving cohort resources

Any research proposal involving a cohort.

What new health research questions or hypotheses will it be possible to answer over the next five to ten years using the cohort resource?

Why can this science be addressed using this cohort above other resources?

What does this cohort offer that other cohorts do not (nationally and internationally) and how does it relate to other relevant cohorts? Applicants should either list the assets (measures, specimens, population group) as an annex or reference the cohort website.

What are the plans for establishing the cohort as a resource – how is it, or will it be, used by the wider research community?

Resources requested

Are the funds requested essential and justified by the importance and scientific potential of the research?

If staff costs are requested, is the time estimated for each requested staff member consistent with their involvement with the project? Is the involvement of the requested staff necessary or sufficient for the successful prosecution and management of the research?

Does the proposal demonstrate value for money in terms of the resources requested?

Is any animal use fully justified in terms of need, species, number, conformance to guidelines?

Research involving cohort resources

Applicants must be clear which costs relate to de novo data collection, analysis of new data and maintenance or use of existing data.

Clinical Academic Research Partnership assessment criteria

Importance

How important are the research questions, or gaps in knowledge, that would be addressed?

Is the level of innovation likely to lead to significant new understanding?

Scientific potential

Research quality

What are the prospects for good scientific progress?

How convincing and coherent is the management strategy proposed?

Robust methodology and experimental design should be at the centre of any proposal to aid reproducibility of research findings. Has the applicant clearly set out and justified the following:

• measures for avoidance of bias (for example, blinding, randomisation)
• number of experimental and control groups and sample size per group
• How the sample size was calculated, showing power calculations and including justification of effect size
• overview of the planned statistical analyses in relation to the primary outcomes to be assessed
• frequency of measurements/interventions to be used
• circumstances in which power calculations are not appropriate to determine sample size.

How well have project risks been identified, and will they be mitigated?

Research environment and people

Consider any disruptive and unequal impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Does the applicant (principal investigator) meet the scheme’s aims?

Are they a healthcare professional working at consultant-level or equivalent (for example, an individual working at a senior level, holding specialised knowledge with demonstrable capacity for professional independence or leadership)?

Are they research-trained but not currently undertaking substantive research activity? The applicant should hold a PhD, or MD or have equivalent experience (for example, around three years consolidated research time, where they have been the intellectual drive behind a project and obtained strong outputs from their research experience). The applicant should have no or limited research funding, it is expected that most applicants will have less than one PA of research time in their current job plan (0.5 days per week)

Is the added-value of the award articulated? For example, will it enable the applicant to re-engage with research, put them on a research trajectory they were not currently on, support them in working in new environments or with new research partners?

Is there evidence of the research capabilities of the applicant (principal investigator), as demonstrated by the productivity of and skills gained during their PhD or MD, and any other past research experience if applicable? Reviewers should take account of preprints in considering applications, noting the content of the papers, rather than where they or subsequent peer reviewed papers are published.

How suitable is the research partner or partners (co-investigator)? Comment on the track record(s) of the individual(s) in their fields and whether they are best placed to support the delivery of the proposed research. Are the research interests of the applicant and research partner aligned?

How suitable is the environment where the proposed research will take place? Please comment on the level of commitment of the host research organisation and the applicant’s employer (NHS trust or equivalent) to supporting the proposed research and whether appropriate facilities will be available to the researchers.

Impact

What is the potential economic and societal impact of the proposed research? Comment on the:

• identification of realistic potential improvements to human or population health
• contribution to relieving disease or disability burden and/or improving quality of life
• identification of potential impacts of research and plans to deliver these.

Ethics

Are there any ethical or research governance issues? Please comment on:

• whether the proposed research is ethically acceptable
• any ethical issues that need separate consideration
• appropriateness of ethical review and research governance considerations
• any potential adverse consequences for humans, animals or the environment and whether these risks have been addressed satisfactorily in the proposal.

Data management plan

Does the data management plan indicate whether the applicants have (or are likely to have) a sound plan for managing the research data funded through the award? Take account of:

• the types, scale and complexity of data being (or to be) managed
• the likely long-term value for further research including by sharing data
• the anticipated information security and ethics requirements.

MRC industry collaboration framework

Any research application involving a collaboration with one or more industrial partners (contributing either in cash or in kind) is handled by MRC as a MRC industry collaboration framework (ICF).

All ICF applications will be identifiable to reviewers as they will have ‘ICF’ at the start of the project title and will have a completed ICF form and ICF company partner letter of support.

The board or panel will make a decision on whether or not to support a proposal submitted via the ICF based on:

• the appropriateness of the partnership between the collaborative partners
• whether that in the absence of the requested funding and the collaboration the planned research could not be undertaken, or that it could not be undertaken to the quality level or timescale proposed
• if the in-kind costs provided by the industry partner have been costed appropriately.

The panel or board will also be asked to raise any concerns about any potential conflicts of interest that have not been addressed and if there are concerns with the intellectual property sharing arrangements that have not been addressed by MRC and LifeArc.

The panel or board may also challenge the developmental status of the project, Basic verses Applied, as set out in the ICF form and checked by LifeArc.

Research involving cohort resources

Any research proposal involving a cohort.

What new health research questions or hypotheses will it be possible to answer over the next five to ten years using the cohort resource?

Why can this science be addressed using this cohort above other resources?

What does this cohort offer that other cohorts do not (nationally and internationally) and how does it relate to other relevant cohorts? Applicants should either list the assets (measures, specimens, population group) as an annex or reference the cohort website.

What are the plans for establishing the cohort as a resource – how is it, or will it be, used by the wider research community?

Last updated: 16 February 2023