Making funding decisions

Funding committees

RECAP is a strategic body and has devolved to subcommittees the decisions in regards to those who should be awarded funds under any of its chosen schemes.

Two sub-committees have been established to consider applications from:

  1. Biomedical scientists
  2. Health professionals and non-biomedical scientists

The sub-committees remit is to judge the quality of the proposed activity, the nature of the environment including the training and the calibre of the individual (where relevant).

Peer review

The peer review process for applications for career support follows the same principles as for research support.

  • arc is committed to funding careers based on research that is of the highest quality and accepts that the process of independent peer review is the most widely accepted tool for achieving this
  • The external peer review process, by its very nature is best suited to judging the quality of the research proposal and, in considering requests for individual support arc has established award committees to take into account the nature of the training programme, the training centre and the individual applicant  

Evaluating the training programme

  • The main role of peer review is to review the proposed training programme to be undertaken by the individual for whom the scheme is designed
  • The training programme needs to be directed towards arc's research or educational goals and, as with the research arc funds, be of an acceptable methodological standard
  • The training programme proposed must also be judged as to their appropriateness for the nature and level of individuals the scheme is directed towards

Evaluating the training centres

The funding committees, informed by the peer review process, are committed to provide training in the best possible sites and environments. This requires a critical examination of the training record and of the programme outlined for the specific application.

  • arc accepts that this will lead to a weighting towards institutions, departments and research groups with an established record in training and, as a consequence, disadvantage those without such a record
  • arc believes it is appropriate for the latter to seek collaborations with those with a proven success as a first step

Evaluating individuals

arc seeks to ensure that its schemes attract the most committed and highest quality applicants. This can be achieved typically by an appropriately constituted and trained interview panel, which would also be able to make a combined judgement on the applicant, the centre of proposed employment and the nature of the work to be undertaken. For early career researchers, such as those entering a PhD scheme, it is often more appropriate for the proposed supervisor to take the lead in recruitment, by open advertisement, as this would lead both to the widest possible field and that the crucial relationship between student and supervisor was given appropriate priority.

Consistency with arc research strategy

The funding schemes to support individuals, as outlined, are based on research undertaken which is also relevant to arc's goals. Although the training component, particularly in early career schemes, is of fundamental importance, the nature of the research needs to be consistent with arc's overall research strategy.