Peer Review: Response to the Consultation Paper

This response to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) consultation paper on peer review for its new grant program addresses only one question: whether an Expression of Interest should form the first stage of assessment for Ideas Grants. Research Australia maintains that a well-designed two-stage process could reduce the burden on applicants and reviewers while supporting the scheme’s focus on novel ideas and reduced emphasis on track record, but warns that a poorly designed one could add burden and delay. It proposes that Stage 1 consist of brief registration information, with declarations from applicants and administering institutions that a literature review confirms the idea’s novelty, and a description of the idea only, assessed blind by a single reviewer and moderated by panels. Up to a target share of applications meeting minimum scores would proceed to a full Stage 2 application that builds on rather than replaces Stage 1, with each person limited to two applications. Drawing on the Health Research Council of New Zealand’s Project Grants, where about 40% of expressions of interest are invited to full application and around 15% are funded, it offers illustrative modelling suggesting a 16% reduction in reviewer effort, while noting sensitivity to assumptions. It suggests trialling the two processes in parallel and recommends that the NHMRC consult further on a two-stage process, with defined objectives and alternative models for evaluation.