Abstract
Introduction: Allocation of research funds relies on peer review to support funding decisions. However, the process can be susceptible to biases and inefficiencies, resulting in unnecessary burden for stakeholders. To effect change and inform robust research, the field needs evidence on what interventions to enhance Peer Review and Decision-Making (PRDM) work, for whom across different funders and research contexts and how.
Methods: Peer-reviewed and grey literature on interventions in PRDM was sourced from a electronic databases and funder websites. Realist synthesis of interventions that generated outcomes for stakeholders used contexts-mechanisms-outcomes (CMO) analysis to identify links between common drivers for change in PRDM (contexts), stakeholder-specific interventions and reactions (mechanisms) and their outcomes.
Results: 95 publications and 36 web sources on recent funder interventions were included. Fifty-nine publications provided CMO links, which were aggregated into 10 high-level CMO Configurations showing what drives interventions to enhance PRDM. Key drivers were: ensuring that research delivers social benefit, minimising unnecessary stakeholder burden, promoting innovative research, improving identification and management of reviewers, improving the quality of reviews and increasing patient and public involvement in decision-making. Interventions have delivered largely positive outcomes (e.g., reviewer selection tools saved administrative time; shorter applications minimised researcher burden; and dedicated funding streams for early career researchers promoted innovation). Today, funders remain focussed on promoting research innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration and early-career researchers.
Conclusions: Realistic options to enhance PRDM for funders involve interventions that introduce incremental changes to the process, reducing burden. Innovative PRDM mechanisms to promote innovation are emerging.
Aim
Realist synthesis to provide an explanatory analysis of ‘what works, for whom, and how’ in the evidence on peer review and decision making to allocate research funds
Intended Impact of the Study
Inform practice change in funding organisations or HEIs.
Inform future studies on peer review and decision making for research funding.
Offer guidance to implement interventions or strategies that enhance peer review.
Link to publication: https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-022-00120-2
Project Lead
Project Collaborators
Katie Meadmore
Kathryn Fackrell
Hazel Church
Amanda Blatch-Jones
Simon Fraser