Rising costs and falling success rates has prompted the Research Councils UK (RCUK) to reconsider the processes they currently use to select research proposals for funding. But the RSC has warned against taking measures that could endanger the UK's highly successful scientific research base.

Researchers in the UK gain much of their funding from the research councils through 'responsive mode' grants. Submitted throughout the year, research proposals are peer reviewed and a decision on funding made by a panel of reviewers.

Responsive mode has always been considered the best method to fund the best science possible. According to the RCUK report, over 93 % of academics believe it is worthwhile, even with the high possibility of rejection.

More proposals, less success

Since 1988 success rates for these grants has dropped from 41% to 28%. This falls into the RCUK target window of 20-50%, defined to avoid low community morale whilst maintaining competitiveness. But an undesirable downward trend looks set to continue, with success rates dropping below 20% by 2019/20.

The drop in grant success can be linked to an increase in the number of research active scientists coupled with the continuing pressure on academics to submit more and more grant applications. This has the knock on effect of lowering the overall success rate despite recent increases in funding.

The effect seems to stem from the need for departments to achieve 5 or 5* ratings in the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) - the process by which departments are rated for academic excellence.

Some argue that the present system forces academics to constantly increase the standards of their scientific proposals but it may also be the case that in the rush to be seen to be research active, academics are compromising quality for quantity of proposals submitted.

What is clear is that the present system of continual grant preparation, submission and peer review places a considerable economic burden on the research councils and research institutions. A  rationalisation that reducing the time spent on grant preparation and reviewing, or in fact reducing the number of grant applications submitted would have an economic benefit.

RCUK strategies

Looking at ways to improve efficiency and decrease costs, RCUK suggested four key strategies in its October 2006 report. It suggested that institutions could be awarded larger consolidation grants for longer periods of time and that the funds would be distributed internally.

Other suggestions included the introduction of individual or institutional level quotas, new controls on resubmission of proposals already rejected and a greater use of outline proposals.

RSC concerns

Across the range of proposals the RSC has concerns about biased distribution of funds, with particular worries for early stage researchers and smaller research institutes.

Consolidation grants and institutional quotas are likely to require departments to implement their own internal peer review but this would be considerably weaker than the peer review system run by the research councils. Individual institutes are unlikely to be able to match the number of disciplines that can be effectively reviewed by the research councils.

Such a system would not necessarily save money; administration costs would just be shifted from the research councils to research institutes. There would also inevitably be concerns about conflicts of interest with those in management positions often also being the senior research staff who may expect to receive the highest proportion of available funding.

The recycling problem

Stopping the resubmission of failed proposals and minimising the recycling of unsuccessful material into new proposals could be an effective route to reducing peer review costs. In practice though, it remains highly problematic. How would you define recycled material and how could you enforce such criteria once defined?

Two step process 

One RCUK suggestion is to create a two step submission process whereby brief outline proposals are first submitted. If favourably peer reviewed, a full proposal could then be submitted for full peer review.

Outline proposals have been found an effective tool for targeted programmes where funds are ring-fenced for specific project areas. But it is debatable whether this would have the desired effect of decreasing the time and resource spent on the review process for responsive mode funding.

Considering RAE pressures, it is quite possible that such a system would lead to a large increase in the number of proposals submitted and it is not at all clear that preparing outline proposals is substantially less work for academics. Additionally a two step process will increase the length of time from initial submission to allocation of awards.

Penalty measures for poor quality

In the RSC's submission to RCUK we have suggested that more use could be made of the current system of grading proposals as part of the peer review process. Eliminating proposals that will never be funded would cut down on preparative, administrative and reviewing costs.

At present the panels convened to assess proposals will rank submissions in order of quality. A researcher who consistently submits proposals that are ranked below a certain threshold could, for example, face a ban of 12 months. This should only be implemented alongside an appeal system and the publication of best practice guidelines.

Responsive mode is powerful

The higher education funding councils distribute more money at a proportionately lower administrative cost, based upon the evaluation of departments through the RAE. But funding from the research councils is distributed to individual researchers and this is the key to its success.

The dual funding system, with the research councils retaining their distinctive approach - including responsive mode funding - will help drive upwards scientific standards.

Change for short-term gain?

Continual monitoring of the peer review process is necessary and we need appropriate measures to maintain its effectiveness and maximise efficiency. But none of the proposed RCUK strategies will be effective alone and if implemented they risk damaging the high quality of the scientific research produced in the UK.

Some have expressed concerns that the RCUK review of responsive mode is partly fuelled by government pressure to fund more applied science which will produce short term economic benefits.

We believe that any large shift in this direction will be detrimental to pure research and to the long term economic success of UK plc. It is exceptionally difficult to judge the long term economic  success and market potential of pure science and any attempt to do this as part of a proposal reviewing process should be avoided.

Of greater importance is the creation of a diverse science base of the highest standard possible and the expert training of scientists.