Ideas to improve the selection of NHMRC Project Grants

The starting point for this presentation is that applicants provide a large surplus of information when submitting a NHMRC Project Grant proposal for funding. This is costly in their time, attracts high administration costs, makes the task appear daunting for peer reviewers and may reduce the quality of the peer review leading to less than perfect reliability in decision making. We are currently experimenting with alternate models to see whether similar reliability in funding outcomes are achieved at less cost. We will compare traditional NHMRC Grant Review Panels (GRPs) with panels that use less information and journal style panels. By way of background to this experimental work, we will show some results on current levels of reliability for GRPs, the costs incurred by all who participate in Project Grant selection, and the level of reliability acceptable to researchers. By experimenting in this way and building an evidence base for how research funding should be allocated, the NHMRC is showing international leadership in this important field