Peer Review Guidance

Raise a query or concern

If you have a query or concern relating to peer review please contact research-ethics@bristol.ac.uk.

 

Peer Review

Peer reviews are an important part of good research practice. Academic staff should feel empowered to act as peer reviewers where their expertise matches the study proposal and feel their contributions are valued. Research proposals should be reviewed by experts in the relevant fields who are able to offer independent advice on its quality.

Peer reviews should be confidential, objective, conducted without bias, and come with some expertise. The suggested alterations should be implemented where at all appropriate.

Peer reviewers should not utilise any research findings from the work without permission of the researchers and declare conflict of interest where needed.

When conducting peer reviews those doing so at UoB should be aware of the Universities conflict of interest regulations and where applicable declare any relevant interests in the research.

Funder Peer Review

Peer review is often conducted as part of a funding application. If this is the case, it is advisable to ensure that you have a copy of an executive summary of the issues raised during the peer review and how those issues were addressed.

It is important to note that a funding application is not the only reason why a research project may need peer review, see below for other requirements which may also apply to unfunded research.

Health and Social Care Research

Research in Healthcare or Social Care settings particularly requires peer review, in part due to the Policy Framework for Health and Social Care, which requires that the organisation with overall oversight for the research are responsible for “ensuring that research proposals and protocols… - are scientifically sound (e.g. through independent expert review)”.

For health and social-care research sponsored by UoB, the Research Governance Team are required, as Sponsor, to ensure that appropriate peer review has been conducted. For most funded research, this will have been conducted through the funding process and we simply need to see confirmation of this. However, if your research is unfunded or the funder did not require a peer review, this does not mean that we do not require proof of independent peer review.

  • for funded projects, the independent scientific peer review process by the funder is the usual route. Individual studies of NIHR programme grants must be reviewed on a study level in addition to the funder review.
  • for student projects, peer review can be provided by the supervisor.
  • all other projects should demonstrate an independent scientific peer review process, relative to the risk of the project.

Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee

If you are submitting a study for ethical review through the Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee and your study is unfunded, you will need to provide a copy of the Health Science peer review template for review.

If your research was peer reviewed during the funding stage, you will need to provide an executive summary of the issues raised during the peer review and how those issues were addressed.

IRAS Applications

For studies Sponsored by the University of Bristol, the Research Governance Team are required to determine whether the requirements of the Policy Framework… have been met.

We will need to see confirmation that either a funder or an independent peer reviewer has reviewed and approved the scientific quality of the proposed study.

Exception – Research Conducted for Educational Purposes

The Policy Framework… exempts educational research from this requirement; “For educational research, the scientific validity and quality may be established by the chief investigator (i.e. the supervisor) at a level appropriate to the nature of the course”.

CRN Portfolio Applications

If you are applying for your study to be Adopted to the Clinical Research Network Portfolio, the application process requires a peer review process which meets their criteria (appendix 1) of being independent, expert and proportionate.

NB. The CRN do not make the above exception for educational research – they still require an independent peer review.

Peer Review - References and Further Reading

A variety of related resources are available internally at the University and from external organisations.