Applying the research impact assessment criteria for peer review video

This video was recorded in October 2025.

Video transcript

Speaker

• Nick Fairbairn - Assistant Director Investigator Grants, NHMRC

Introduction – 0:08

Hello and welcome to this peer reviewer training video on research impact.

In this video, you're going to learn about how NHMRC's retrospective research impact assessment criteria works, including why we've made changes in 2026 and how these changes are designed to better support you to provide a fairer and more targeted assessment of applicants past impact.

Why retrospective impact matters – 0:31

In order for NHMRC to build a healthy Australia through its grant program, the research and researchers that we fund must have impact.

One way that NHMRC peer review attempts to measure the potential for future impact is to ask reviewers to consider the applicant's contributions to a former or ongoing impact and the reach and significance of that impact, across one or more of the available types: knowledge, health, economic and social.

Remember, when considering reach and significance, applicants claiming more than one type of impact aren't necessarily having more impact.

Your job is to assess the scale and the scope of the claimed impact and to consider those against the score descriptors to assign the most appropriate score.

Applicant's contribution to the research impact – 1:19

When considering the applicant's contribution to the impact, there are 3 key attributes of that applicant and of their contributions that NHMRC peer review asks you to consider.

These are the 3 assessment elements for the criterion, found in the score descriptor tables and seen here on this slide.

The applicant's job, in response to this criterion, is to try and convince you, the reviewer, that they are the researcher most likely to have a positive impact on knowledge, health, the economy and/or society with their future research.

They demonstrate this through their contributions to realising, sustaining and/or maximising their claimed impact along a pathway to impact, which we will talk about shortly.

Your job as a reviewer is to assess the effectiveness of the applicant's deliberate and targeted contributions along a pathway to impact that demonstrate that achieving impact is central to the applicant's research endeavours and ambitions.

The pathway to impact – 2:18

NHMRC has removed the team's contribution to the impact assessment criterion from the assessment of retrospective impact and instead introduced the concept of a pathway to impact.

We've also switched our expectations around recency in the assessment, so that it is the applicant's recent and/or ongoing contributions to realising, sustaining and/or maximising the impact that is assessed, instead of the recency of the impact itself.

Applicants are now able to reference multiple projects or program of research when making their impact claims and we have clarified our advice around the non-additive nature of applicants claiming multiple impact types.

These changes are designed to simplify the assessment of research impact by allowing the applicant to anchor their impact story around a single cohesive narrative that focuses on things within their control.

For example, their demonstrated efforts to improve the likelihood and the scale of the impact of their research, rather than the effectiveness of their team to influence the impact or when the impact itself occurred.

Key considerations – 3:27

Peer reviewers should carefully consider the context of the research and researcher when performing their track record assessments.

Investigator Grants utilises an application-centric model of peer review, which allows NHMRC to assign reviewers to applications they declared the highest suitability to review in almost all cases.

As a peer reviewer, you have a responsibility to realise this advantage by using your experience and expert knowledge to ensure that you are considering the context of the applicant's career stage and research area when baselining your expectations of what contribution that applicant could and should have been able to make towards realising their claimed impact.

Peer reviewers are also expected to understand the nature of impact to ensure that when baselining expectations of applicants, you acknowledge that impact is not the sole responsibility of a single researcher and that multiple individuals will be involved. For example, research collaborators, intermediaries, regulators, consumers or end-users.

Remember that 'impact' has a specific meaning in NHMRC peer review, which may not align with how the term is used elsewhere in the health and medical research sector and can be claimed by applicants across the four impact types. Whether the applicant is part of a small or large team, the peer reviewer's task is to consider the applicant's nominated contributions to achieving impact along a pathway to impact against the 3 assessment elements, in the context of the applicant's career stage and area of research.

There are no correct number of contributions an applicant should nominate and it is not essential that applicants nominate contributions from every stage of the research life cycle.

Applicants may not have been engaged with a research project or program that led to their impact through each stage of the research life cycle and therefore are only required to nominate those contributions that best address the 3 assessment elements.

Avoid relying upon extraneous considerations or seeking information that wasn't supplied in the application to inform your assessment.

All information required for assessment should be included in the application.

You're not required to externally verify any impact claims, however, you are free to corroborate these claims if you feel that is appropriate to do.

And finally, remember why NHMRC assesses retrospective research impact.

It's because recent track record is the best indicator of future success and NHMRC funded research needs to have impact if it is to contribute to our mission to build a healthy Australia.

So look for contributions that demonstrate that achieving impact is central to the applicant's research endeavours and ambitions.

Look for contributions that demonstrate the applicant's resilience, determination, and flexibility, with the ability to adapt their research plans and their plans for impact as the need arises, as these are the attributes of researchers who are most likely to have future impact with their NHMRC grant.

Thank you and please contact your secretariat – 6:30

If you have any questions about impact or any other element of peer review, please reach out to your secretariat in the first instance.

Good luck with your assessments and thank you for your ongoing support of, and commitment to, independent peer review.

End of transcript.