Training modules for peer reviewers

Potential and appointed peer reviewers should familiarise themselves with the relevant scheme's Peer Review Guidelines and Grant Opportunity Guidelines.

Once you have viewed these modules, we encourage you to complete a short (less than five minutes) knowledge quiz to test the information gained.

Please note the information provided in these modules and quiz is not exhaustive and is hypothetical in nature. NHMRC acknowledges that individual circumstances for each peer reviewer are different and that some examples may not be relevant.

Disclosures of interests

Video transcript

0:04  
This guidance module provides information on NHMRC’s Disclosure of Interests process, for the purpose of peer review of grant applications.

The information provided in this module is not exhaustive and does not replace the advice within the relevant scheme’s Grant Opportunity Guidelines or Peer Review Guidelines.

Section one covers the background and justification for identifying and declaring interests. Section two, provides practical advice and common examples, to help you get your declarations right, the first time. Achieving this reduces your workload, and contributes to the rigour and integrity of NHMRC’s peer review system.

Please note, conflicts of interest and suitability declarations are undertaken in NHMRC’s grant management system, in tandem.

0:50  
Section one - Background and Justification

0:54  
Conflicts of interest have the potential to compromise, or have the appearance of compromising professional judgment and the ability to make unbiased decisions.

1:03  
The NHMRC Act requires you to disclose any relevant interests in writing before you are granted full access to applications that are assigned to you.

1:12  
The Situation Table in the Peer Review Guidelines provides guidance and examples for disclosing your conflicts. It refers to personal and professional activity and relationships, and articulates how different conflict situations are defined. Before you begin, familiarise yourself with this table, and have it on hand as you make your way through your allocated list of applications.

1:35  
Based on the information provided for every declaration, an NHMRC officer makes a ruling on your ability to assess each application. It's vital that you provide enough detail when describing your interests - this enables accurate rulings by NHMRC and maintains the integrity of the process. If initial declarations are clear, accurate and detailed, it limits the need for NHMRC to follow up with you, thereby reducing your workload and making the process more efficient.

2:06  
Declarations that aren't clear or accurate can result in delayed timelines and potential scenarios in which assessors with the most relevant expertise are not assigned to applications.

2:18  
Section two - Practical advice and examples

2:21  
To identify and disclose any interests, you need to review the summary of each grant application assigned to you. Summaries consist of project title, research team, administering and participating institutions, classification and synopsis.

2:39  
This process is a self assessment, and relies on the honesty and accuracy of each peer reviewer. You must provide an indication as to your level of conflict with all applications. You may select 'I require a ruling' if your interest falls outside the examples provided in the Situation Table, and you are not sure of the level of conflict to be disclosed.

3:02  
Detailed instructions on how to download application summaries, and record your declarations in NHMRC's grant management system will be provided by your Secretariat.

3:13  
When describing details of an interest, keeping in mind who, where, what and when, will help NHMRC quickly determine the level of conflict that may apply, and increase our ability to utilise your expertise in peer review.

3:28  
We will now provide examples to illustrate how to effectively disclose your interests, noting, that this should not be considered an exhaustive list of scenarios.

3:38  
Example One - Dr A works at Macquarie University, and has been appointed as an NHMRC peer reviewer. Noticing the CIA listed on the application summary also works at Macquarie University, but in a different school and department, Dr A records the conflict as a LOW, stating: 'Works at Macquarie'.

4:00  
In accordance with NHMRC policy, Dr A was correct in declaring a LOW conflict. However, from the information provided, the reviewing NHMRC officer cannot make an informed or accurate ruling.

4:13  
Further phone and email correspondence is required to clarify the nature of the relationship, resulting in additional time and work for Dr A and the NHMRC officer.

4:24  
A more detailed declaration would be:

4:26  
'The CIA and I both currently work at Macquarie University in different schools and departments, and do not know each other.'

4:34  
Given that this is a LOW conflict of interest, Dr A would be considered to assess this application by NHMRC.

4:41  
Timing does not always allow NHMRC the opportunity to seek further clarification from the peer reviewer. In these instances, NHMRC would need to work with the information that was provided and would make an assumption on the side of caution. This would mean a HIGH ruling, which would uncessarily prevent the peer reviewer from assessing an application.

5:05  
Example two - Professor B, an appointed NHMRC peer reviewer, recognises the CIB on an application summary, having co-authored a large, multi-author paper 2 years ago. Professor B records this as a LOW conflict stating:

5:22  
'Co published two years ago.'

5:25  
The reviewing NHMRC officer is unable to uphold a LOW conflict declaration without clarifying the number of authors or the nature of the relationship with the CIB.

5:35  
A more detailed declaration would be:

5:37  
'I published with the CIB two years ago on a 20-author paper. WeWe had no direct communication.'

5:43  
Given Given that this is a LOW conflict of interest, Professor B would be considered to assess this application by NHMRC.

5:51  
Example three - Associate Professor C works at the University of Adelaide, and has been appointed as an NHMRC peer reviewer. Recognising that the CIC on an application summary is employed by the same institution, but is unknown to them, Associate Professor C declares a LOW conflict stating: 'Same institution'.

6:13  
From the information provided, the reviewing NHMRC officer cannot make an informed or accurate ruling. Further correspondence takes place between the NHMRC officer and Associate Professor C. While the peer reviewer has not had any direct contact with the CIC they are in fact in the same school. According to NHMRC policy, this constitutes a HIGH conflict of interest. The NHMRC officer overrules the LOW declaration, and Associate Professor C is no longer eligible to assess this application.

6:45  
To avoid this scenario, a more detailed declaration would be:

6:49  
'CIC and I currently work at the same university and school. I do not know the CIC and we have had no direct collaborations.'

6:57  
Relevant interests must be disclosed prior to application assessment, however new or previously unrecognised interests can and must be disclosed to NHMRC as soon as possible. These may arise at any stage of the process.

7:13  
For example, Professor D is an appointed NHMRC peer reviewer and is working on completing his assessments. While reviewing an application Professor D notices the CIB began working in his lab in the period since declaring their interests. According to NHMRC policy, this constitutes a HIGH conflict of interest.

7:34  
Professor D must notify NHMRC of this late conflict of interest by emailing his Secretariat with complete details of the conflict as soon as possible. When a late conflict of interest occurs, it is important that the peer reviewer destroy all documents relating to the application. This includes both hard and soft copies.

7:56  
If you require any further information on the Disclosure of Interest process, refer to the scheme documentation or contact your NHMRC Secretariat.

End of transcript.

Suitability declarations

Video transcript

0:03  
This guidance module provides information on NHMRC’s Suitability declaration process, for the purpose of peer review of grant applications. The information provided in this module is not exhaustive and does not replace the advice within the relevant schemes Grant Opportunity Guidelines or Peer Review Guidelines.

0:23  
This module provides background and explanations, as well as an example of how to approach identifying and declaring your suitability correctly, the first time. Achieving this reduces your workload and contributes to the rigor and integrity of NHMRC's peer review system. Please note suitability and conflict of interest declarations are undertaken in NHMRC's granting system, in tandem.

0:49  
Once you agree to participate in peer review for NHMRC, we will broadly match your expertise to groups of applications in your field. You must then declare your level of suitability to assess individual applications before NHMRC can assign your allocations. To do this, you need to review the application summary, which consists of project title, research team, administering and participating institution, research classifications and synopsis. Detailed instructions on how to download application summaries, and record your declarations in NHMRC's grant management system will be provided by your secretariat.

1:28  
Of the four options, you must select one option regarding your suitability for all applications assigned.

1:36  
To make your participation in peer review worthwhile NHMRC generally expects you to declare either 'Yes' or 'Moderate' for a majority of the applications allocated to you.

1:46  
Selecting 'Yes' or 'Moderate' means you feel confident in your ability to understand and assess the proposal's aims, background and research plan, against assessment criteria and associated category descriptors. It also signals you are confident making a judgment on the appropriateness of each project's budget, timeline, risks, outcomes and significance.

2:09  
Please note, not all NHMRC schemes will require you to consider all these elements when declaring your suitability. For example, some schemes may not require you to assess the budget or another may only ask you to assess commercial viability of a project. Refer to the scheme specific documentation and instructions for further information.

2:30  
We will now provide examples to illustrate how to effectively declare your suitability, noting that these should not be considered as an exhaustive list of scenarios.

2:40  
Example one: Dr A, a medical oncologist specialising in gastrointestinal cancers, has been appointed as an NHMRC peer reviewer. Dr A has been asked to declare their suitability to assess an application on chemotherapy resistance for colon cancer. After reading the summary, they feel very confident to assess all aspects of the proposal, other than one portion, which focuses on a specific technique for genome sequencing. Although Dr A is familiar with this technique, they have limited practical experience. As they are confident to assess the majority of the application, Dr A selects 'Yes' and would be considered to assess this application.

3:22  
As you can see from this example, you are not expected to have expert knowledge of all aspects of the application, especially in the case of multidisciplinary proposals. In most cases across NHMRC funding schemes, there are multiple complementary assessors for each application. This ensures all aspects of the application are reviewed appropriately.

3:45  
Example 2: Associate Professor B, a Virologist who specialises in HIV has been appointed as an NHMRC peer reviewer. Associate Professor B, an experienced virologist with a focus on blood borne viruses, does not have extensive practical experience with the techniques relating to respiratory viruses. Associate Professor B is confident they could provide a thorough assessment of general principles outlined in the application. Associate Professor B selects 'Moderate' suitability, and may be called upon to assess the application.

4:20  
Example 3: Professor C, a Cardiologist specialising in pediatrics, has been appointed an NHMRC peer reviewer. Professor C has been asked to declare suitability to assess an application on heart transplants. While Professor C has cardiac experience, they have not worked in the field of transplants and is not familiar with the techniques. Professor C could only provide general cardiac advice in relation to this application, and as such, declares 'Limited' suitability. Professor C may be called upon to assess this application, only if the overall suitability provided for this application has been low.

5:00  
Please only declare a 'No' if you have absolutely no ability to review the application. Keep in mind that the wider the assessor pool available for each application, the fairer the outcome it will receive.

5:12  
If you select 'Limited' or 'No' for a large number of applications, NHMRC may ask you to re-examine your suitability. If suitability is not improved, NHMRC may release you from peer review for that year. As well as finding the best expertise and self declared suitability matches, NHMRC also needs to ensure that each assessor's workload is fair and balanced. NHMRC will assign each assessor a similar number of applications to review.

5:42  
This process is self assessed and subjective in nature. No 2 experiences are the same, with each expert inevitably perceiving different levels of comfort to assess the variety of applications.

5:55  
NHMRC still requires you to select your level of suitability to assess an application, even if you are declaring a high conflict of interest. This is because you may have expertise in an area which the assigned assessor needs further guidance. In rare circumstances, NHMRC may ask you to provide advice to a very specific question relating to an application for which you are highly conflicted. You would not assess the application in any way; but simply provide expertise to assist the assigned peer reviewers in making their assessment.

6:31  
If you require any further information on the suitability declaration process, refer to the scheme documentation or contact your NHMRC Secretariat.

End of transcript.