Application
Scientists write a grant proposal that explains what they want to investigate, how they will do the research and why it is important.

AMRC believe that it is important our members have a research strategy that explains their objectives in funding research. This helps applicants understand what areas of medical research the charity supports, so that applications meet the charity’s objectives.

Triage
If the charity receives a larger number of applications it may use triage to reduce the number of applications that are reviewed. Triage removes applications that do not fit the research strategy or the particular funding call. It can be performed by charity staff, a peer review panel, or by trustees.

Peer review
Peer review takes place in two phases: external and internal review. Both are essential for assessing the quality of research applications.

Peer reviewers can be researchers working in the same or a similar field, other professionals with knowledge of the area, or members of the public. Members of the public who are involved in peer review are often known as lay reviewers.

Medical research charities want to fund research of the highest quality that will bring benefits to patients. That’s why many charities involve patients and the public in deciding what research to fund. People who are affected by a disease or condition bring knowledge and experience, and provide a valuable perspective when reviewing project proposals.

External peer review
Applications are read by specialist reviewers who have similar interests and expertise to the applicant. External reviewers assess the value, quality and potential impact of the science, and provide a written report of their expert opinion to the internal review panel.

Internal peer review
Charities have research committees, sometimes known as scientific advisory panels. These committees are made up of people with relevant research expertise and/or understanding of the charity’s remit. Advisory panels are often supported by charity staff, but panel members and external reviewers are independent of the charity.

The scientific advisory panel meets to review the applications and recommend which should be funded. They consider the external reviewers’ opinions alongside their own views and may be required to consider wider issues such as ethics and the potential impact of the research on patients. Their recommendations are reported to the charity’s trustees.

It’s good practice to feed reviewers’ comments back to applicants so they receive constructive criticism and can understand the reasons for the panels’ decisions. Feedback from external reviewers is usually given anonymously, and panel members’ comments are non-attributed.

Funding decision
The charity’s trustees usually make the final funding decision, although in practice many charities delegate this responsibility to the scientific advisory panel. The trustees know that the science is of a high quality because it has been peer reviewed; they must then decide whether it will be the best use of the money that the charity has raised. 

Only after these requirements are met will a scientist receive funding to carry out their research. This ensures that the best science is funded and that the money donated by the charity’s supporters is put to the best use.