Proposals will be reviewed by a pool of experts covering a range of relevant disciplinary areas.
You can nominate up to two academic and two non-academic reviewers. We invite only one to assess your research proposal and may decide not to approach any of your nominated reviewers.
Reviewers are invited to assess each proposal based on their individual merit.
If a proposal meets the standard ESRC minimum quality threshold, the principal investigator is given the opportunity to respond to the reviewers’ comments.
Proposals are then assessed by a specially convened expert commissioning panel, taking into consideration the scores and comments of the reviewers. The panel includes non-academic experts.
The panel evaluates the proposals on their individual merits, in addition to providing a comparative assessment of all the proposals. The panel will make a final funding recommendation to the ESRC.
The ESRC productivity executive board will make a strategic decision on the proposals to support, within proposals rated highly against the assessment criteria outlined below. Funded grants are considered as part of a portfolio of awards.
All proposals will be assessed using the standard ESRC peer reviewer scoring system against the following assessment criteria.
Fit the scope of the opportunity
Proposals must fit strategically with the overall aims of the ESRC’s productivity investment. This will include explaining how the proposal’s activity is aligned with the requirements of the funding opportunity.
The proposal is situated within the wider research context.
The proposal adds value to the existing research landscape.
The project takes place within the timeframe required.
Research excellence and scientific impact
A compelling plan for new research that aims to be internationally excellent and breaks new ground in understanding and addressing productivity.
Track record of academic excellence, incorporating expertise from a wide range of disciplines and methodologies.
Clearly described and justified research methods.
Clearly described and justified data management and access plans that identify risks to, and mitigations for, accessing and sharing data.
Plans for new research with the potential to generate new knowledge and lead to new insights on under researched themes.
Plans should not overlap with productivity research funded by the ESRC.
Outcomes, impact and engagement
Clear proposals for generating impact underpinned by a thorough understanding of the principles and practices of effective knowledge exchange and impact generation.
Evidence of well thought out and realistic plans for engagement and knowledge exchange, that maximise opportunities for academic, societal, economic and user impact.
The proposal sets out clear, measurable and achievable outcomes that demonstrate evidence of the research’s planned impact, which goes beyond a list of outputs.
The project has practical outcomes, a policy impact or both.
Clear commitment to work constructively and proactively with other grant holders from this funding opportunity and investments in productivity already funded by ESRC in order to maximise the impact of the portfolio as a whole.
Value for money
Sufficient detail and justification of the costs of the project in the justification of resources attachment.
Funds requested are essential for the work.
The importance and scientific potential justify funding on the scale requested.
Clear allocation of duties and responsibilities, if the proposal has more than one investigator.
The proposal represents good value for money.
Commitment to work constructively and proactively with investment funders and supporters.
Declaration on research assessment
UKRI recognises the relationship between research assessment and research integrity, and supports the San Francisco declaration on research assessment (DORA).