Notes from a Mock Panel

'Save me from my friends'. Never truer than in the bearpit
of academic peer review

I took part in the University's PGCHE research funding module today, which took participants through a 'mock panel'. This is always a useful exercise as it gives potential applicants a feel for the issues that peer review panellists are having to grapple with in real life.

There were about thirty participants, and we divided them into five panels: one of humanities academics (looking at AHRC applications), two of social scientists (looking at ESRC applications)  and two of scientists (looking at EPSRC applications).

In preparation I did some reading around the ESRC process, and I'll write these up in a post shortly, but in the meantime it's worth noting some of the key points that came out of the session:

• Firstly, no matter what your discipline, you can spot the weaknesses in the applications. This is interesting: I chaired one of the social science panels, and all those who took part were in disciplines that were very different from those of the applicants. Nevertheless they picked up on a lot of the weaknesses, and were pretty accurate in the ranking of the applications.
• Secondly, seniority matters. We pretend it doesn't, but if a PI has an impressive CV, we're more likely to let some vagueness in the application slide. This was a bit disheartening for the ECRs present. However, I pointed out that two of the best applications under consideration were from ECRs who had overcome this difficulty by either have a strong, robust and well thought through project design, or had more senior co-investigators on board to give it gravitas and reassurance. 
• Thirdly, time is short. You imagine the panellists have all the time in the world to consider your application, but time's snapping at their heals. Decisions need to be made, compromises struck, and the agenda moved on. You - as the applicant - have to help the introducers by giving the the information they need to support your application in a format and place that they can grab it quickly. Cut to the chase: what's your research question, why's it important, why's it timely, why are you the person to answer it, how are you going to do it, and how are you going to disseminate it.
• Fourthly, confidence shines through. If you believe in yourself and your research, it really helps. Don't be tentative, uncertain or - let's be frank - academic. You need to sell your proposal, and to do so you've got to believe in both its worth, but also in its achievability.

Feedback from the Social Sciences Mock Panel

Well, another day, another Grants Factory event. Yesterday it was the turn of a Social Sciences 'mock panel', which gave academics in the Faculty (and beyond) the opportunity to test drive their applications, and understand some of the pressures, the issues, and the difficulties that real peer review panels operate under.
The chair for the event was Prof Peter Taylor Gooby, who has been involved in a number of funder panels, and was able to give useful insight into how they work. Some of the points he raised included:

• it helps if your project can 'press' both theory and practice buttons. Show that your project will be useful to both academics (and your discipline more broadly), as well as having applications outside of academia;
• For the ESRC, you only have 6 pages for your Case for Support. Make sure you get on to the methods/design/analysis section as quickly as possible. As a broad rule of thumb, you should be on to the methodology by p2. Funders want to know what you're actually going to be doing during the project.
• Try and get a balance of qualitative and quantitative research. Both can inform each other, and you can avoid being shot down in flames by a panelist who only works with one or the other.
• Be aware of - and be honest about - any weaknesses or potential difficulties. They will be picked up straight away by the panelists, so it's good to be up front, to demonstrate that you recognise them, and to show that you have in place mechanisms to overcome any problems in the research methodology.
  

Further mock panels are coming up, for EPSRC, the EC, and the Humanities. The Social Sciences one will run again in the Spring - date to be confirmed. Let me know if you would be interested in coming along to any of these.

BBSRC Mock Panel to be Held at Kent

Alf Game and Helen Meade from the BBSRC are coming over to Kent next Wednesday (30 June) to run a mock peer review. This is something that the EPSRC runs regularly, but it's new territory for the BBSRC. A mock panel is an opportunity to experience what it is like in a real peer review panel. Participants are given a range of previously submitted applications to assess, and have to introduce, discuss and prioritise them. At the end you will find out which of the applications were successful in reality. It’s a really useful exercise to help understand the issues and restrictions the real panel operates under.
Numbers are restricted, and places are given on a first come first served basis. Lunch will be available from 12pm, and Alf will kick off the meeting with a brief overview off the committee process before getting down to the business of reviewing applications. If you would like to take part please drop me a line.