The British Council’s International Science Partnerships Fund - what makes it different?

Over the years, I’ve had the privilege of serving as a reviewer and panel member for a wide range of funding schemes. The responsibility of evaluating research proposals, often across disciplines and international contexts, requires careful consideration, but it also offers a unique perspective on the breadth of innovation and collaboration happening across the global research landscape. Most recently, I had the opportunity to observe a Wellcome funding panel, which offered valuable insights into how different funders approach decision-making and prioritisation. I’ll be writing a separate blog soon reflecting on my experiences across various UKRI schemes and councils, but for now I want to focus on a particularly distinctive fund: the British Council’s International Science Partnerships Fund (ISPF).

The ISPF is different to many other UK-based research funding schemes. It’s part of the UK’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) portfolio, which means it’s not just about advancing scientific knowledge, it’s about supporting equitable partnerships and capacity building in low- and middle-income countries. The fund is designed to foster long-term collaboration between UK researchers and international partners, with a strong emphasis on mutual benefit and sustainable development. Proposals are assessed not only on their scientific merit but also on how well they address local needs, involve relevant stakeholders, and contribute to broader development goals. This includes a critical emphasis on gender equality and social inclusion, which must be embedded throughout the project design and implementation. Importantly, proposals that score highly on research quality but do not meet the ODA eligibility criteria or fall below the minimum threshold for the gender score are not considered for funding. This ensures that the fund remains aligned with its core mission of supporting equitable, inclusive, and development-focused research.

The panel process itself is highly structured and requires active engagement from all members. Each proposal is reviewed by two independent reviewers, who score against a detailed set of criteria. Each criterion is scored between 0 and 5, with 5 being the highest, and these are then totalled to give the reviewer’s overall score. The two reviewer scores are averaged to provide a baseline for panel discussion. However, the panel presenter, who leads the discussion on each proposal, is expected to go beyond the numbers. They must carefully examine not just the total scores, but the breakdown across individual criteria and the content of the review comments. A key part of the presenter’s role is to assess whether reviewers have applied the criteria consistently and fairly.

This structured approach also gives the panel a lot of power to moderate across all proposals and to dismiss scores that are clearly biased, whether overly generous or overly harsh. Bias is typically detected by looking for inconsistencies between the numerical scores and the written comments, or by comparing how similar proposals have been scored across the panel. For example, if a reviewer gives a low score for stakeholder engagement but their comments suggest strong engagement activities, or if their scoring diverges significantly from the second reviewer without justification, this flags a potential issue. The panel can then choose to disregard or adjust the score accordingly. This moderation process is very time-consuming, but I feel it’s very fair and helps ensure that decisions are based on a balanced and transparent assessment.

I actually really like this approach. Breaking down the assessment into individual scoring criteria makes it much easier to understand the reviewer thought processes and identify where differences in interpretation may lie. This is quite different from other funders such as UKRI, where we typically receive a single overall score out of 6, accompanied by comments that vary widely in detail and clarity across the scoring criteria. The ISPF system feels more transparent, and it supports a more nuanced and constructive panel discussion, despite the overall much lower levels of funding typically available.

In addition to the scientific experts, the panel also includes dedicated specialists for gender and ODA compliance. These experts provide their own detailed assessments of each proposal, focusing specifically on whether the project meets the fund’s requirements for gender equality and development relevance. The gender expert evaluates whether the proposal identifies relevant gender-related issues, proposes meaningful actions to address them, and includes mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating gender-related outcomes. They also look for evidence of inclusion in the research team, stakeholder engagement, and capacity building activities. Their input is especially important when the scientific reviewers may not have the expertise to fully assess these dimensions, and it adds another layer of rigour to the process. The ODA expert similarly ensures that the proposal aligns with the principles of development aid and contributes to sustainable, equitable outcomes in partner countries.

In cases where only a single review is received, the panel member presenting the proposal is expected to provide a more detailed assessment and effectively stand in as the second reviewer. The only frustrating aspect is when that single review is of poor quality. That makes it very challenging for the panel member to give a fair assessment, especially when the review lacks detail or misinterprets the criteria. However, I do feel that the structure of this particular panel means that a poor review is much less likely to tank an application than with some other funders. The emphasis on moderation and consistency really helps to safeguard against that.

Funding limits are relatively modest compared to some other schemes, but the impact can be significant. Projects are co-developed with partner countries and designed to build local research capacity, which makes ISPF a very different kind of fund, one that requires applicants (and reviewers) to really consider the real-world implications of their work, with equal if not greater emphasis to the scientific excellence.

I would encourage archaeological researchers to actively engage with the International Science Partnerships Fund (ISPF), particularly as a way to give back to countries where we have historically benefitted from access to archaeological material; ISPF provides a framework for genuinely equitable partnerships that ensure the benefits of international research flow both ways.