PCFA Peer Review Process
Determination of grant and applicant quality, PCFA priority and the role of the Research Committee
Australia is home to a myriad of world class prostate cancer scientists. Each year we receive a huge number of applications for funding in different areas of research. The only way of making sure that the best research has been rewarded via funds that have been raised through such hard work is to have a competitive, unbiased assessment process in place.
The model that the PCFA has adopted for assessment of research applications received every year is that of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the main government funding body of research nationwide.
The criteria, guidelines and review process published on line reflect such standards.
In brief: How do we assess project and applicant quality and whether the budget is adequate?
1. Received applications are devided into categories that fit the criteria for funding.
2. Project titles and summaries are screened and external international assessors (2/grant) and national assessors(1/grant) are assigned to each grant.
3. External assessors give all grants a score.
4. Upon receiving three or more assessments for each application, an average score is calculated and a list with the ranking according to the average score is made and sent to the Research Committee.
5. Our research Committee is made of six distinguished scientists with expertise in different areas of research that have participated in the review process through the NHMRC for years. They are assigned up to 20 applications each, to which they give an independent score.
6. A final meeting is then organised where the RC members have calculated an average score that takes into account their independent scoring together with the scores from the external assessors.
7. Final ranking (scores from 7-1, where 7 is outstanding) is prepared and grants are discussed one by one on the basis of their scores, merit and PCFA priority.
8. Money is distributed until it runs out.
9. It is not always the case that all the funds available are distributed. If it is the case that the quality of grant is not at the highest level required, the RC makes the recommendation to stop the funding at a certain score. Usually, grants that receive a score below 5 are not funded. Those that receive a score of 5-5.5 are in the highly desirable category of funding and are only funded if the budget for any given year permits.
10. Upon a decision being made by the Research Committee on the number and nature of grants to be funded, a proposal is made to the National Board of the PCFA for approval. The results of any funding round are made available only upon such approval.
11. Subsequently, successful and unsuccessful grantees are notified of the outcome electronically and via mail.
12. Letters to applicant contain detailed information on the outcome of the funding round and reasons for funding or lack theroff.
13. Applicants are encouraged to re-apply to us in most cases as unfortunately some very deserving research grants are deemed unsuccessful due to lack of funds.
Conflict of interest (COI) and how do we deal with it?
The Australian Prostate Cancer Research Community is big yet small in that scientist do know each other and do know about the work in the field being undertaken in their country. For this reason, when we appoint assessors nationally, we take great care not to assign applications for assessment to scientist within the same institute or those that work together. Should that happen at any stage, the work ethic in research is such that they come back to us stating the level of COI. In that case the application is assigned to someone else.
However, all applications are assessed externally by scientists and clinicians worldwide that have an excellent track record in the field and are totally unbiased in their assessments. This year alone, we have had 190 international assessors on board that are committed to review for us for the next two years.
We have received excellent feedback in this from the research community and our efforts of ensuring an unbiased, highly competitive evaluation process have been commended in different forums.
In the case where a member of the RC is conflicted with any of the applications, they MUST exit the room while that particular application is being discussed.