Grant Reviewing, Panels and Observers: Seeing the research funding process from the Other Side

One of the most formative aspects of my academic career has been my involvement in grant assessment. Like many researchers, I began by reviewing journal articles - once you have published a couple of papers, you find yourself being asked to review others on similar topics. Over time, I started to take up opportunities to review grant proposals, and this has become a central and enriching part of my professional life. The first grants I reviewed were for a European programme in 2014, where I was invited by recommendation from a colleague - they needed someone with environmental archaeology experience who could review a handful of proposals with a quick turnaround. I was still very much an early career researcher, just a couple of years out from finishing my PhD. I was thrilled that my expertise was being recognised in this way, and it is a responsibility I took very seriously.

Over the years, I’ve had the opportunity to work with a wide range of funders, both in the UK and internationally. I’ve served on the AHRC Peer Review College since 2016 and have been a member of the UKRI Future Leadership Fellows Peer Review College from 2018. I’ve reviewed for  the research councils of other countries in Europe, such as the National Science Centre in Poland, the Slovak Research and Development Agency, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, as well as the ERC.  Since 2024, I’ve been a member of NERC's National Environmental Isotope Facility (NEIF) Peer Review Panel B for Life Sciences, the British Council’s ISPF natural sciences panel, and have sat on several panels for different AHRC funding schemes. 

Sitting on an assessment panel is a little different to reviewing, and something that I moved on to after many years of reviewing. Being a reviewer involves evaluating individual proposals in isolation, while sitting on an assessment panel requires comparing and ranking a group of proposals collectively, often through discussion and consensus-building with the rest of the panel. It requires looking at the feedback from multiple reviewers, and trying to arrive at an overall assessment based on multiple opinions. It's a different kind of responsibility, and one that gives deeper insight into how the actual funding decisions are made.

What I’ve found particularly valuable is how much reviewing teaches you about the funding landscape. Each funder has its own set of criteria, priorities, and expectations. Engaging with these as a reviewer forces you to think critically about what makes a strong proposal, not just in terms of the research topic, but in how it’s framed, justified, and communicated. This has had a direct impact on how I approach my own applications. Reviewing has helped me become more strategic and reflective, and more aware of how to tailor a proposal to its audience.

Some funders prioritise methodological innovation, others focus on societal impact or capacity building. Some place a strong emphasis on interdisciplinarity or international collaboration. As a reviewer, you learn to read proposals through these different lenses and that, in turn, helps you write more effective proposals yourself. It also makes you a better mentor to colleagues and students navigating the funding landscape. One of the most rewarding parts of my job is being able to use my knowledge and experience in this area to help others write the best proposals they can.

Soon, I’ll be sitting on a Wellcome Trust committee as an observer - something new for me. It’s not the same as reviewing, but I’m excited to see how the assessment process works from the inside at Wellcome, which is quite a unique funder with a very different approach compared to many other funders. I’ve had brief experience with them before, having received a Seed Award in 2017 and later applied unsuccessfully for a larger grant. What stood out to me was the detailed and constructive feedback I received. This is something most funders don’t provide, and it made the experience genuinely helpful, even though my proposal was rejected.

Despite the time commitment, which can be considerable, I continue to find grant assessment deeply worthwhile. It’s a way to contribute to the research community, to support emerging ideas, and to stay intellectually engaged. It’s also a really useful form of professional development - the experience and skills you gain from reviewing and panel work is different to doing research, and highly transferable. So very useful for those who might want to move from academia to another sector in future. If you’re offered the chance to review, take it! Rather than having to be recommended as might have been the case in the past, many funders now solicit applications from researchers directly, and are looking to have a wider range of reviewers with different backgrounds and experience. You’ll learn more than you expect, and it might just change how you think about your own research!