Peer review processes and evaluations

Peer review models

We use both panel-based and application-centric peer review models, which underpin NHMRC’s mission to build a healthy Australia by identifying and funding research that improves health outcomes for Australians. Read our paper on NHMRC’s peer review models.

Application-centric peer review

Ideas Grants and Investigator Grants schemes use application-centric peer review whereby individual applications are matched to the most suitable peer reviewers based on their suitability and conflict of interest declarations such that each application can have a unique best-fit set of reviewers.

• Find out more about the development and implementation of application-centric peer review
• Discover how application-centric peer review has benefited the Investigator Grants scheme by viewing the infographic on the application-centric peer review page.

Relative to opportunity

NHMRC considers relative to opportunity to mean that peer reviewers should assess an applicant’s track record of research productivity and professional contribution in the context of their career stage and circumstances, by taking into consideration whether the applicant’s productivity and contribution are commensurate with the opportunities available to them.

The Relative to opportunity policy has 2 components:

• Career circumstances – personal or professional circumstances affecting research productivity (not meeting the definition of a career disruption – see below). These circumstances are taken into account in track record assessment.
• Career disruption – a prolonged interruption to the ability to work due to pregnancy, illness/injury and/or carer responsibilities. Career disruptions are taken into account in track record assessment and in determining an applicant’s eligibility to hold an Emerging Leadership Investigator Grant (in terms of years since their PhD pass date).

In addition to NHMRC’s principles of peer review, particularly fairness and transparency, the following principles support this objective:

• Research opportunity: Researchers’ outputs and outcomes should reflect their opportunities to advance their career and the research they conduct.
• Fair access: Researchers should have access to the funding available through NHMRC’s grant program consistent with their experience and career stage.
• Career diversity: Researchers with career paths that include time spent outside academia should not be disadvantaged. NHMRC recognises that time spent in other sectors, such as industry, may enhance research outcomes for both individuals and teams.

NHMRC expects that peer reviewers will give clear and explicit attention to these principles to identify the highest quality research and researchers. NHMRC recognises that life circumstances can be varied and therefore it is not possible to implement a formulaic approach to applying relative to opportunity considerations during peer review.

Revised NHMRC grant program and peer review process

In 2019, NHMRC revised its grant program, including developing a peer review process. Input from comprehensive public consultation, NHMRC Principal Committees and expert working groups was used to develop peer review models for the Investigator, Synergy, Ideas and Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies Grant schemes.

A final consultation report on the development of peer review for NHMRC’s grant program is available in the downloads section.