Publons, part of the Web of Science Group (a Clarivate Analytics company), has published the first large-scale survey on competitive research grant peer review, Grant Review in Focus.
A grant is a financial award given by a governmental body, non-profit, or private enterprise for a beneficial project of some kind, and the peer review of grant funding is a fundamental part of the research life cycle. Grant Review in Focus brings together the most extensive researcher survey on grant peer review ever conducted – with more than 4,500 respondents- and the full power of the Web of Science and InCites datasets. The researchers surveyed have reviewed or applied for funds from over 800 unique funders, spread across 95 countries. A range of funders were also interviewed for qualitative insights.
The report also finds that 89% of reviewers believe that greater recognition of grant peer review work would improve the process, with 81% believing that funders should take on this responsibility. They are dissatisfied with the transparency of the grant peer review process, with 60% believing that greater transparency of review identity would have a positive impact on the process. This is even higher than publication peer reviewers (40%). Cash payments might seem an attractive driver of reviewer participation to many funders, but it does not seem to motivate reviewers (cash comes sixth for reviewers in a list of motivating incentives) as much as a desire for transparency and recognition.
Further, the report notes that peer review is consistently recognised as a bulwark of quality, with 78% of researchers agreeing it is the best way to allocate funds to the best research. However, researchers also identify perceived failings of the peer review process, including unfair treatment of junior researchers and an aversity for innovative research. Grant peer review is a time-intensive endeavour with funders spending up to six hours per application finding reviewers, and grant reviewers spending an average 10 days per year on reviews.
Finding peer reviewers is proving increasingly difficult for funders, with funders now having to invite at least three reviewers to secure one reviewer. According to the report, the reviewer workload is not evenly distributed, with just 4% of reviewers accounting for over 25% of all reviews undertaken.
Greater training for peer reviewers and explicit guidelines to reviewers are needed to ensure the quality and consistency of grant funding decisions.
The report is a sequel to the Global State of Peer Review and forms part of a series of insightful reports from Publons on the peer review process.
Brought to you by Scope e-Knowledge Center, a trusted global partner for digital content transformation solutions - Abstracting & Indexing (A&I), Knowledge Modeling (Taxonomies, Thesauri and Ontologies), and Metadata Enrichment & Entity Extraction.
