Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: A prospective study

Herbert, Danielle L, Graves, Nicholas, Clarke, Philip, & Barnett, Adrian G (2015) Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: A prospective study. BMJ Open, 5(7), e008380.

View at publisher (open access)



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.


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.


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.

Impact and interest:

1 citations in Scopus
1 citations in Web of Science®
Search Google Scholar™

Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.

These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.

Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.

Full-text downloads:

43 since deposited on 06 Jul 2015
11 in the past twelve months

Full-text downloads displays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.

ID Code: 85136
Item Type: Journal Article
Refereed: Yes
Additional URLs:
Keywords: research funding, evidence, NHMRC, streamlining
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008380
ISSN: 2044-6055
Divisions: Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Health
Current > Institutes > Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Current > Schools > School of Public Health & Social Work
Copyright Owner: Copyright 2015 please consult author[s].
Copyright Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work noncommercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See:
Deposited On: 06 Jul 2015 04:55
Last Modified: 01 Dec 2015 04:27

Export: EndNote | Dublin Core | BibTeX

Repository Staff Only: item control page