Review and Selection Process

Funding lifecycle and review process

Our funding programmes are developed and delivered through a structured, evidence-based process designed to ensure that funding is directed towards high-quality, relevant, and impactful research.

Our research team undertakes a scoping exercise to determine which areas of health research have the greatest need but are overlooked and where our investment can produce the greatest impact. This impact may be on patient care, understanding disease mechanisms and/or building capacity in the field. Based on this information a funding competition is designed to suit the needs of current and potential researchers in the field, and is submitted to our Board of Trustees for approval

The Board will evaluate the evidence gathered through the scoping exercise and make a decision based on this evidence and alignment with our organisational strategy, on whether the proposed funding scheme is an appropriate use of funds. Once approved, funding calls are launched and actively promoted to eligible researchers. Applications are received by the deadline and undergo administrative checks to ensure eligibility, completeness, and alignment with the competition remit.

For competitions with an Expression of Interest (EOI) stage, applications are assessed at this point to determine whether applicants are invited to submit a full proposal.

How we review applications

All eligible applications undergo a structured expert‑review process designed to assess scientific quality, feasibility, relevance, involvement and/or engagement of patients and the public, and potential impact.

Our review processes typically include:

• Eligibility and scope checks carried out by the charity's Research team
• Independent expert review, including:
  • appropriate clinical, scientific, and methodological expertise.
  • lived experience expertise; and
  • public engagement and involvement expertise
• Panel‑based assessment, where expert reviewers discuss applications, consider differing perspectives, interview applicants where appropriate, and make funding recommendations.
• Final decisions made in line with governance and conflict‑of‑interest policies.

The exact review model may vary depending on the size, purpose, and objectives of each funding opportunity.

Lived experience experts

Where appropriate, public partners, and specifically lived experience experts, are involved in our review processes. Lived experience experts help us assess:

• The relevance of proposed research to people affected by the condition.
• The clarity and accessibility of applications.
• The potential for meaningful real‑world impact.

Lived experience expert insights are considered alongside scientific review and form an important part of our decision‑making for relevant funding schemes.

Review panel meetings

For larger funding calls, a shortlisting panel may first assess applications and select the strongest candidates for progression. Applicants may be invited to submit a rebuttal or attend an interview, depending on the scheme.

All competitions include an Expert Review Panel meeting, where:

• Applications are discussed in a structured and confidential setting
• Written expert review reports are considered
• Applicants are interviewed where appropriate (particularly for personal awards)
• Strengths, weaknesses, and risks are evaluated against the aims of the funding call
• Funding recommendations are agreed collectively

For project grants, panels consider reviewer feedback and applicant rebuttals. For personal awards, applicants present their proposal and respond to panel questions. Fundable applications are ranked, and final funding decisions are made within the available budget.

Panel members act independently and in the best interests of the charity. Conflicts of interest are identified, declared, and managed throughout, in accordance with our Conflict of Interest Policy. Roles and decision-making responsibilities are defined in our Review Panel Terms of Reference.

Following panel decisions, the Research team prepares feedback for all applicants and communicates outcomes. Successful applicants receive formal award letters, and funding is issued in line with our policies and procedures.

Equality, diversity and inclusion in review

We recognise that diverse perspectives strengthen funding decisions and help reduce bias. We are committed to embedding diversity, equity and inclusion across our review processes, including:

• Building diverse expert review panels across discipline, career stage, gender, ethnicity, geography, and lived experience.
• Managing conflicts of interest rigorously to protect independence and impartiality.
• Supporting inclusive review practices, including clear guidance and structured assessment criteria.
• Reflecting regularly on our processes and reviewer composition to identify and address potential barriers.

We are committed to ensuring that funding decisions are made through fair, transparent and consistent assessment processes.

We aim to assemble review panels that reflect a diversity of expertise, experience and perspectives, including appropriate representation of women and those from other groups traditionally underrepresented in research. In some highly specialised research areas, the pool of available reviewers may be limited, and panel composition will be balanced alongside the need for relevant subject expertise.

All panel members are expected to assess applications objectively and consistently, taking account of the charity's guidance on equality, diversity and inclusion, career breaks, non-linear career paths, and flexible working arrangements.

AMRC Membership

The Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC) is a membership organisation of the leading medical and health research charities in the UK. As a member, we follow its guidelines for best practice on expert review and support its position statements on supporting research in universities and the use of animals in research.

As an AMRC member, we are independently audited and required to uphold the AMRC Principles of Expert Review: accountability, balance, independence, rotation, and impartiality.