Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively test two simplified peer review processes, estimate the agreement between the simplified and official processes, and compare the costs of peer review. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: A prospective parallel study of Project Grant proposals submitted in 2013 to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia. The official funding outcomes were compared with two simplified processes using proposals in Public Health and Basic Science. The two simplified processes were: panels of 7 reviewers who met face-to-face and reviewed only the nine-page research proposal and track record (simplified panel); and 2 reviewers who independently reviewed only the nine-page research proposal (journal panel). The official process used panels of 12 reviewers who met face-to-face and reviewed longer proposals of around 100 pages. We compared the funding outcomes of 72 proposals that were peer reviewed by the simplified and official processes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement in funding outcomes; costs of peer review based on reviewers' time and travel costs. RESULTS: The agreement between the simplified and official panels (72%, 95% CI 61% to 82%), and the journal and official panels (74%, 62% to 83%), was just below the acceptable threshold of 75%. Using the simplified processes would save $A2.1-$A4.9 million per year in peer review costs. CONCLUSIONS: Using shorter applications and simpler peer review processes gave reasonable agreement with the more complex official process. Simplified processes save time and money that could be reallocated to actual research. Funding agencies should consider streamlining their application processes.

Original publication





BMJ Open

Publication Date





HEALTH ECONOMICS, PUBLIC HEALTH, Advisory Committees, Australia, Biological Science Disciplines, Biomedical Research, Financing, Government, Humans, Peer Review, Prospective Studies, Public Health, Research Design, Time Factors