Summary
The UK Metascience Unit has tested ways to change research-grant review, including applicant-led peer review. Its co-head says that approach can speed assessment, while email appeals to reviewers’ social obligation did not increase acceptance.
The UK Metascience Unit has tested changes to research-grant assessment, including a system in which applicants review one another’s proposals. In a Nature World View, unit co-head Jen Gold says the team found that this distributed peer review can speed assessment; an email appeal asking potential reviewers to act from social obligation did not increase their acceptance rates.
Launched in 2024, the unit is jointly run by the UK government’s science department and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). Metascience applies scientific methods to the systems through which research is funded, conducted and evaluated. Here, that means testing how grant processes work rather than assuming that established procedures are effective.
Experiments on grant assessment
Gold describes two completed tests. The team tried emails appealing to potential reviewers’ sense of social obligation to see whether more would accept invitations. According to her account, the intervention had no effect.
The unit also assessed distributed peer review, in which applicants review other applicants’ proposals. Gold says this can accelerate grant assessment because the reviewer pool grows with the number of applicants, avoiding the need to recruit external reviewers. The account does not quantify the time saved, so the result is best understood as the team’s reported finding rather than a measure of how much faster the process becomes.
A separate trial is under way on staff desk rejection. In this approach, UKRI employees identify and remove applications judged non-competitive before they reach peer review. The stated aim is to explore whether this can reduce demands on reviewers; the trial’s outcome has not yet been reported.
A small team with room to change course
The unit has six people. Gold argues that a small team is better suited to testing changes because it can redirect its effort quickly. After the email intervention failed to increase reviewer acceptance, the team chose to focus on other ideas rather than continue refining that approach. Her recommendation to other countries is to give metascience teams the freedom and resources to experiment, alongside leaders prepared to act on what the tests find.
The practical case for this work is that grant procedures shape how research is assessed and supported. Testing specific interventions can give funding organisations a basis for deciding whether to change those procedures. The UK unit’s reported results illustrate that approach, while its ongoing desk-rejection trial shows that some proposed changes are still being evaluated.