Grant reviewers are key to ensuring that the best projects receive the funding they deserve. They help maintain the integrity of grant processes, ensuring that only the highest quality proposals are forwarded for final funding decisions.
This article explores exactly what grant reviewers do, why they’re essential, and the different types of reviewers that play specialised roles. We also highlight how technology can streamline the review process and ensure greater transparency and efficiency.
A grant reviewer is a professional that evaluates grant proposals before initial submission, or before final funding decisions.
Peer review is the formal term for the review of grant applications and the relevance and reliability of the process has been questioned over the years. However, in a survey by Publons, 78% of respondents still agreed that it’s the best way to allocate funds (for research grants specifically).
In essence, the peer review process is a well-established aspect of managing grants. It's considered a sign of quality, and it’s not likely to change significantly any time soon.
Consistent evaluation criteria and clear definitions of those criteria help ensure that applications are assessed fairly, with consistency and reliability.
Different organisations have different review processes - for example, varying numbers of reviewers and different evaluation methodologies. Some have more rounds of reviews than others. But the core responsibilities remain consistent.
Reviewers check proposals to make sure the ideas presented are well-structured and aligned with the funding organisation's goals. They check for clarity, coherence, and the overall feasibility of the proposed project.
Reviewers’ evaluations help applicants recognise areas of strength and identify potential problems in their applications. Reviewers can recommend adjustments to the narrative, methodology, and budgeting details, making proposals more complete and persuasive.
Even if an application doesn’t make it past the initial review stage, constructive feedback helps applicants improve their chances of success with future funding opportunities.
Reviewers scrutinise budgetary details to verify that the requested funds will be allocated appropriately and are realistic given the project's scope. This protects funders from approving projects with unrealistic or inflated budgets that could lead to implementation challenges.
With any programme, it’s essential that reviewers are independent and objective, with no affiliation to the funder that might create conflicts of interest. Ethical guidelines typically require reviewers to prevent themselves from evaluating proposals where personal or professional connections might compromise their impartiality.
Different types of reviewers bring their individual perspectives and expertise to the table. Here are some of the roles required.
Applications are often sent to experts in the field related to the grant proposal. These specialists bring in-depth knowledge of the subject matter, which is critical for evaluating the technical merits and innovative potential of the proposed project. Their responsibilities include:
Subject matter experts are crucial in highly specialised fields where general reviewers might lack the knowledge to properly evaluate proposals.
The Royal Society of Chemistry selects their reviewers based on these criteria:
Grant makers often rotate their scientific advisors to maintain impartiality, as is the case at Cancer Research UK.
Financial analysts are sometimes required for large-scale grants or those involving complex financial structures, but again, practices vary across organisations. These analysts:
In some situations, it’s necessary to check whether an applicant’s intended project execution will comply with certain rules and standards. This may be necessary when grants involve highly regulated sectors or when funding is tied to specific compliance requirements.
Compliance officers:
Compliance officers are not typically part of a review panel or committee, but they may advise the committee when specialised oversight is required. They may be involved in reviews for government funding, international projects, or specialised fields with strict regulatory frameworks.
The grant review process typically progresses through three stages, outlined below.
The first stage involves conducting an administrative review to check the procedural aspects of the application. This preliminary screening ensures that:
This initial screening saves time by filtering out applications that don’t meet basic requirements before they advance to more in-depth reviews.
Some organisations conduct a second round of preliminary reviews before moving on to the next stage. This allows for more detailed checks beyond the fundamental procedural aspects.
After passing the administrative review, applications undergo a more thorough evaluation by reviewers external to the funding organisation. This stage may involve:
Including multiple reviewers at this stage helps prevent unconscious bias from influencing decisions, ensuring that funds are awarded based on merit rather than subjective preferences.
The final stage typically involves another review committee that:
In larger organisations, this stage may involve board members who ratify decisions, adding another layer of oversight to the process.
Modern software streamlines grant management, reducing the time spent on administrative tasks and making processes leaner. Some grant management systems, such as Flexigrant, have features dedicated to helping funders efficiently manage the application review process and increase transparency. Let’s look at how it helps.
Cloud grant management software serves as a central location for all documents and communications, such as application forms and review comments. Reviewers and decision-makers can access proposals, budgets, and other files quickly, without the need for multiple logins or physical paperwork.
With the Committee Workspace tool in our funding management software, members can easily share insights and feedback in real time, ensuring that everyone is working with the same information. This eliminates duplicate efforts and the need to chase down missing details, allowing for timely communication and smoother collaboration.
Transparency is key to gaining grantees’ and applicants’ trust. The survey we mentioned earlier revealed that many researchers are dissatisfied with the transparency of the grant peer review process, and 60% agree that more transparency would have a positive impact.
A central workspace promotes transparency, as every comment, revision, and decision are logged within the system, creating an auditable trail that can be referred to at any stage of the process.
What’s more, reporting capabilities allow organisations to analyse patterns in funding decisions over time, helping identify and address any biases or gaps in their grant-making. Flexigrant has a dedicated EDI monitoring tool for this purpose, which detects bias in previous applications.
The expertise of grant reviewers ensures that proposals are well-crafted, budgets are accurate, and that all criteria are met.
Ultimately, the collective efforts of these professionals ensures that only the most promising projects receive funding.
Using a tool like Flexigrant’s Committee Workspace allows for secure document sharing, real-time collaboration, and streamlined communications. To find out more about how it can save your organisation time and effort - and increase transparency throughout the review process - contact us today.