Reflections from a Wellcome Committee Observer: A Model of Fair and Inclusive Peer Review

This started as a brief post on an interesting experience, but as I started writing it turned out I had more to say than I thought! As someone with extensive experience in peer review and panel processes, I was really grateful that I recently had the opportunity to observe a Wellcome Trust Medical Humanities advisory group meeting. The experience stood out not only for the quality of the discussion but for the integrity and inclusivity of the process itself.

The panel was well selected, with deep expertise across disciplines relevant to the proposals under discussion. What impressed me most was the respectful and rigorous way in which feedback was delivered. Criticisms were thoughtful, clearly grounded in the published assessment criteria, and presented in a way that acknowledged the strengths of each application. It was a model of constructive peer review. The diversity of the panel itself was incredibly refreshing. It included researchers from the global South, minority scholars, and practitioners. In contrast to many panels I’ve participated in, where diversity is there but often limited, this felt genuinely balanced (though interestingly, the gender balance was more women than men). The richness of the discussion reflected that diversity, and it made me realise how often we miss out on this depth of insight in more homogenous panels. I was also impressed with the panel chair, who did an excellent job of summarising the discussion of each proposal, distilling complex points into clear, balanced reflections that ensured every application was considered with fairness and consistency.

One of the most heartening aspects of the meeting was the open and respectful discussion around disability and accessibility. It was clear that the panel took these considerations seriously, not as a box-ticking exercise, but as a meaningful part of evaluating how inclusive and equitable a project might be. This still feels rare in funding panels (yes I have been in situations where well-meaning people make very ‘othering’ comments around autism and disability). There was serious discussion on the research environment and research culture, as well as the project and the investigator, and it genuinely felt like these were given real consideration.

A useful insight came from panel members who pointed out how unclear it can be in interdisciplinary proposals, how different types of datasets are actually brought together. This struck a chord with me, as someone who often works across disciplinary boundaries and tries to integrate diverse forms of evidence. It reminded me that I need to be more explicit in explaining this process: how different lines of data are reviewed, weighed, and considered in relation to the research questions we’re trying to answer. Making that synthesis visible is crucial to help reviewers understand the logic and coherence of interdisciplinary work.

It was quite challenging to remain an observer and not contribute to the discussion, but in the end it was valuable to simply listen and just reflect on the process. I think the inclusion of panel observers is very novel, and certainly helps to demystify funding decisions, and brings a layer of transparency that encourages accountability. Knowing that someone is present to witness the process perhaps reinforces a commitment to high standards of fairness and professionalism. I wonder if this could be adopted more widely across other funding bodies?

Another standout feature of Wellcome’s process is their willingness to offer feedback, and to allow resubmissions that take that feedback into account. This reflects a genuine commitment to supporting applicants and improving the quality of funded research. It contrasts sharply with more opaque systems where feedback is minimal or absent, and where applicants are left guessing about how to improve. Or in some cases, getting excellent reviews and scores, but not getting funded, with no explanation, and no ability to resubmit...

The whole experience stands in stark contrast to others I’ve had, particularly with UKRI panels (my main experience being with AHRC and NERC). These have always felt to me like we’re trying to get through things as quickly as possible, with little consistency in the time spent on each application, and reviews often feel disconnected from the panel discussion. Reviewers themselves are not present to clarify or defend their assessments (or to be held to account when the comments are unfair, or even wrong). Panels can lack disciplinary relevance, making it difficult to moderate between conflicting reviews for some proposals, whereas others get more detailed discussion as there happen to be subject specialists on the panel. There is room for improvement here – that doesn’t have to mean a specialist for every application, but at least someone in the same broad field who can meaningfully moderate the reviews would be ideal.

Overall, the experience left me with a strong sense of confidence in Wellcome’s commitment to fairness. If you apply to Wellcome, your application will be considered with care, respect, and rigour. They care about research culture and the institutional support for the investigators and their teams. It was a privilege to observe, and I hope other funders take note!