The Medical Research Council (MRC) welcomes co-review as part of our expert review process across all funding opportunities. This approach aims to formalise and support collaborative expert review, helping to strengthen the quality, inclusivity, and sustainability of our review processes.
Co-review is a collaborative approach to expert review where two experts work together to assess an application for funding. Typically, this involves a senior researcher and an early career researcher or a researcher looking to progress toward independence, such as a supervisor and their mentee. However, co-review teams may also include two experts with complementary skills and perspectives.
Benefits of co-review
A collaborative review process can:
- make reviewing more manageable by sharing the workload, making it easier to contribute without becoming overwhelmed
- mentor and develop future researchers: involving more junior researchers builds essential skills in research evaluation and funding strategy
- enhance review quality leading to more balanced and broad-ranging assessments of applications
- support a sustainable system by sharing responsibilities to create a more resilient and inclusive review ecosystem that values collaboration and diversity
- formalise existing practices which allows for structure, transparency and oversight
Requesting a co-review
If you have been invited to review you can accept and request a co-review by email to peer.review@mrc.ukri.org.
When making the request to co-review, you must:
- obtain permission from your proposed co-reviewer
- provide their full name and email address so that access to the application can be arranged
The MRC team will invite the co-reviewer to register with the UKRI Funding Service. The co-reviewer must agree to the terms and conditions via the Funding Service before they can access the application and co-review can begin.
Only one review should be submitted, the originally invited reviewer is responsible for submitting the final review.
MRC does not match co-reviewers. Co-reviewers must be suggested by the lead reviewer who was initially approached.
Early career and senior researcher co-review process
In this type of co-review, an early-career researcher and senior colleague work on the review together.
You should include the following co-review statement: “This is a co-review. It has been prepared by an experienced reviewer with input from a junior colleague for the purpose of reviewer training. Both reviewers have expertise in this area.”
Before you start:
- agree on roles, feedback process, and final decision-making
- ensure both are comfortable with the subject and flag any conflicts of interest
- set deadlines, establish a timeline for drafting, feedback, and submission
Preparation:
- refer to How reviewers use the UKRI Funding Service for tips on how to write a review and information on the scoring criteria
- decide structure (such as summary, strengths and weaknesses)
Writing the review:
- agree how you will work together to capture your consensus views and associated score
- senior colleague takes responsibility for capturing the joint assessment into a clear, balanced and objective review, guided by the principles of usable reviews
- agree on score and ensure it reflects the written assessment and scoring criteria
Submitting the review:
- make sure the co-review statement is included
- the senior colleague (initially invited reviewer) submits the final review
- once submitted you could also reflect on what worked and what to improve next time
Academic peers collaborating on a co-review process
Co-reviewing between peers provides an opportunity to exchange perspectives, enhance critical evaluation skills, and strengthen understanding of funding assessment processes.
You should include the following co-review statement: “This is a co-review. It has been prepared jointly by two experienced reviewers with expertise in this area.”
Before you start:
- agree on roles, clarify how you’ll divide tasks and make decisions
- confirm subject relevance and declare any conflicts of interest
- set deadlines, establish a timeline for drafting, feedback, and submission
Preparation:
- consult UKRI’s reviewer resources, including How reviewers use the UKRI Funding Service, and complete any required training
- agree on structure (such as summary, strengths and weaknesses)
Writing the review:
- draft the review, following the approach agreed, ensuring the joint assessment is clear, balanced and objective and guided by the principles of usable reviews
- finalise score and ensure it reflects the written assessment and scoring criteria
Submitting the review:
- include the co-review statement
- the initially invited reviewer submits the final review
- once submitted you could also reflect on what worked and what to improve next time
Ask a question about co-reviewing for MRC
Email: rfpd@mrc.ukri.org
Last updated: 29 October 2025