Author Archives: Helen Greaves

The Corona-Eye: Exploring how COVID-19 affects deliberative and mediation measures in the REF2021 peer review of Impact

Read our newest preprint on how COVID-19 influence peer review evaluation processes using REF2021 as an example. Gemma Derrick and Julie Bayley have written the following paper found here on the Open Science Framework about how peer review processes will change because of COVID-19. This project explores how peer review committees might sensitively account forContinue reading “The Corona-Eye: Exploring how COVID-19 affects deliberative and mediation measures in the REF2021 peer review of Impact”

The cost of lost academic dreams: A personal learning journey, peer review and research waste

Dr. Gemma Derrick reflects on her own personal experience of grant rejection. When my last grant application was rejected, I cried.  Academics miss out on funding more often than they succeed so really, what was the point of crying?  Why did I let it affect me so much? Shouldn’t I be used to this byContinue reading “The cost of lost academic dreams: A personal learning journey, peer review and research waste”

Constructive peer review makes science stronger for everyone

 It’s hard to be in academia without hearing about the dreaded Reviewer #3. Despite the thousands of jokes, very little is actually known about the impact of the review process on researchers – and on the research community! Competitive funding is a core component of maintaining a thriving and innovative research culture – but theContinue reading “Constructive peer review makes science stronger for everyone”

Why is feedback a fix for a failed peer review system?

Dr. Gemma Derrick reflects on why the Research Phoenix project is both timely and of paramount importance. Building a kinder research culture has received a lot of attention of late and there is new hope in changing a system that can be unforgiving, competitive and heartbreaking at the very best of times.  If nothing else,Continue reading “Why is feedback a fix for a failed peer review system?”

Understanding and improving written peer review for grant applicants.

Written by Jonathan Best of the Wellcome Trust, from the funders perspective. Peer review, the use of experts to assess the merits of research proposals, forms the backbone of decision-making for research funding. The main role of these reviews is to inform funders decisions regarding which projects to fund by giving expert opinion on theContinue reading “Understanding and improving written peer review for grant applicants.”