Version: 1.0 Date: 26/04/2016 Author: Kristina Elvidge Contact: Peer Review Policy

Transcription

1 Version: 1.0 Date: 26/04/2016 Author: Kristina Elvidge Contact: Peer Review Policy

2 Contents 1 Introduction Aims Reviewers Principles of Peer Review Process Expression of Interest Translational Research Grants and Incubator Grants Scholarships and Fellowships Travel Grants Assessment Criteria Accountability... 6 Peer Review Policy Page 2 29/03/2016

3 1 Introduction Peer reviewing allows Sanfilippo Children s Foundation (SCF) to seek independent, expert advice in order to make decisions about which research to fund. Peer reviewing is expert advice provided by appropriately qualified, independent professionals and experts. A peer is an individual that the applicant would consider to be of at least equal standing in the field, or have equal knowledge, and whose opinions are most likely to be respected. Lay experts can be used to provide advice on other aspects of research, such as the potential benefits to patients or how well it fits with the research strategy of the organisation. Funding decisions are ultimately made by the Foundation s Board of Directors based on the recommendations made by the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) and any external peer reviewers. 2 Aims The essential aims of the peer review process are to ensure that the proposed research is: Relevant to the foundation s objectives and research strategy; Within the capabilities of the applicant(s); Novel and not a duplication of other studies; Using appropriate methodologies; Conducted by competent researchers, in a suitable research environment and that the level of financial support requested is appropriate for the work to be undertaken. 3 Reviewers Internal reviewers are considered as those serving on the SAB. SAB members will not be employed by SCF. External reviewers are considered as those not serving on the SAB, and are sought for their specific expertise. The SAB can use external experts to seek additional informed opinions, in writing or in person, about the applications under review. Members of the SAB will have relevant experience and expertise in the field that SCF s research strategy is focused on, and the majority will be active in research and/or clinical care. 4 Principles of Peer Review SCF requires its internal and external reviewers to adhere to the NHMRC peer review guidelines that outline best practice for the conduct of peer review: As such, it is expected that SCF peer reviewers: are fair, accurate and honest in their review; Peer Review Policy Page 3 29/03/2016

4 give constructive feedback; act in confidence and do not disclose the content or outcome of any process in which they are involved; declare all conflicts of interest and do not permit personal prejudice to influence the peer review; do not agree to participate in peer review outside their area of expertise; In particular the NHMRC guidelines go into considerable detail about conflict of interest which should be considered before accepting an invitation to peer review a grant. SAB members should also consider these guidelines in relation to grants being considered, declare any conflict of interest and abstain from reviewing of and voting/scoring of grants. SAB members and external reviewers must not discuss applications with applicants and, similarly, applicants should not approach SAB members either before or after the SAB meeting. All correspondence should be made via SCF. 5 Process 5.1 Expression of Interest Researchers will first be asked to submit an Expression of Interest (EOI) application and state in a cover letter any conflicts of interest with SAB members (listed on the SCF website). EOIs will be circulated to all SAB members with the exception of those with a declared conflict of interest. Only the project title and researcher name will be provided to SAB members with a conflict of interest. A speaker will be assigned to each EOI. The SAB will meet (in person or by teleconference) to consider the EOIs and decide which applicants to invite to submit full applications. This will be decided by a simple yes/no vote. SAB members with a conflict of interest will be asked to leave the meeting while those applications are discussed. 5.2 Translational Research Grants and Incubator Grants We aim to have all Translational Research Grants and Incubator Grants reviewed by at least two external peer reviewers. More reviewers may be sought if further expert advice is required on certain methodologies for example. External reviewers will be chosen and invited to provide external review by a SCF staff member, or contract staff member with relevant qualifications (e.g. Research Manager) in consultation with members of the SAB. Reviewers suggested by the applicant will be considered alongside other experts in the field. Overseas reviewers may be sought and may be desirable to give a perspective on how the research fits in with international activities. Grant applications, along with reviewer s comments, will be forwarded to all SAB members (except those with a declared conflict of interest) within a reasonable time period prior to a planned SAB meeting. Peer Review Policy Page 4 29/03/2016

5 A scoring matrix based on the agreed assessment criteria (scientific quality, significance and/or innovation and team quality and capability) will be provided to external reviewers and SAB members. As for the EOIs, SAB members with a conflict of interest will be asked to leave the conference call/meeting while those applications are discussed. Comments and recommendations for funding will be compiled from the SAB meeting and forwarded to the Board of Directors for a final decision on funding. 5.3 Scholarships and Fellowships Scholarship and Fellowship applications will be considered by the SAB alone without external peer review. They will then make their recommendation to the SCF Board of Directors. References from the applicant s nominated referees must be submitted using the supplied form by the referee by the advertised due date. Peer review of NHMRC co-funded scholarships will be handled by the NHMRC and the SAB chair will have sole discretion on recommendations made to the SCF Board of Directors on whether to go ahead with co-funding of the proposed candidate (unless there is a conflict of interest in which case the Deputy Chair or another SAB member will be nominated to undertake this role). 5.4 Travel Grants Travel Grant applications will not be part of the annual grant round process, but will be considered on an ad hoc basis throughout the year. The SAB chair will consider applications and give advice to the SCF Board of Directors (unless there is a conflict of interest in which case the Deputy Chair or another SAB member will be nominated to undertake this role). 6 Assessment Criteria Project and Incubator Grant Applications will be assessed by the following criteria (using a similar scoring system to the NHMRC): Criteria Description Weighting Scientific Quality Significance and/or Innovation Team Quality and Capability Is the project clearly defined, well designed and feasible? Does the project have the potential to change the course of Sanfilippo syndrome and how quickly can it be implemented into the clinic? Do the researchers have the required skills and experience to carry out the project? Reviewers will give a score out of 7 for each criteria where 7 is outstanding by international standards and 1 is poor. Further guidance is given on the peer review report form distributed to both external and internal reviewers. 50% 25% 25% Peer Review Policy Page 5 29/03/2016

6 7 Accountability SCF will: Publish on their website details of the charity s procedures for the evaluation of research applications including details of all SAB members; Provide details on their website on the types of research that they fund; Provide written feedback to all applicants once a decision has been reached by the SAB and SCF Board of Directors (reviewers comments will be anonymised); Ensure that there is transparency of the review process, by making available an outline of the decision-making process and the timetable. Peer Review Policy Page 6 29/03/2016