The NIHR has recently announced the next call for Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) applications (Competition 32).
MAHSC will be reviewing applications for the Wednesday 22nd March 2017 deadline.
The aim of the internal Peer Review is to enhance the competitiveness of applications from MAHSC members, improving quality by providing critical evaluations of applications in final draft stage.
The virtual internal Peer Review Panel is made up of researchers from across the MAHSC partnership from different disciplines with relevant RfPB experience. The Panel will be co-ordinated by the MAHSC Research Office.
Submission of draft RfPB applications to the Internal Peer Review System is compulsory for researchers at CMFT or University employed.
R&D Departments must be involved at an early stage in the preparation of applications to ensure that all finance streams and details are correct.
The internal review process will be carried out as follows:-
1) PIs should work with their R&D Departments and Divisional Research Managers at CMFT to prepare an application.
2) All paperwork, including a completed draft grant application form, should then be submitted electronically to Louise Berry firstname.lastname@example.org no later than Wednesday 15th February 2017.
3) The proposal will be sent out to appropriate Panel reviewers who will provide comments within 14 working days (excluding Bank Holidays).
4) Anonymised feedback will be sent to the PI with a copy to their R&D contact within their Trust, no later than Wednesday 8th March 2017.
5) PIs can then make revisions to the proposal in light of the reviewers’ comments.
The dates above are the final dates for submission to the internal peer review process and have been set to allow sufficient time for applicants to incorporate any necessary changes.
If your application is ready for review at an earlier date please do submit your proposal and we will endeavour to arrange early peer review.
This procedure should bring about an increase in quality of proposals and with it higher success rates. The impact and user friendliness of the internal peer review procedure will continue to be monitored and changes made where appropriate.
We welcome feedback on this process. Please send your comments to the MAHSC Research Office via Louise Berry email@example.com