Peer Review Process

We identify potential reviewers though personal knowledge and contacts and by searching the publications databases to identify experts who have published in related areas. International as well as UK peer reviewers are used.

Reviewers are invited to comment on:

Importance, Relevance and Quality: How important is the proposed work and how relevant to prostate cancer research and the lives of men? Is there an adequate literature review? Are there clearly expressed objectives? Are they realistic? Is there a clear protocol? Is the timetable feasible?
Methodology: Could you comment on the plan of investigation and the likelihood of decisive results within the time scale? Are there clear timescales and milestones? Are there realistic objectives? Is there appropriate design and methodology? If appropriate, is sample size adequately explored and explained? Is the proposed data analysis appropriate? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?
Originality: Have others attempted to answer the same questions and if so, does the work need repeating or does the proposal offer anything new?
Environment: Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed experiments employ useful collaborative arrangements?
Research management and support: Is the amount of funding requested appropriate? (overseas reviewers may be unsure of UK finance issues, so need not comment). Is the study resourced properly in time and equipment?
Outcome and dissemination: Is this adequate?
Ethical assessment, if applicable: Do you have any concerns?

They are then asked to indicate the overall grade they would give the proposal.

Outstanding	Outstanding work of the highest calibre, pioneering and trend setting. (only applied to absolutely exceptional work. No more than 5% of the programmes in a big cancer charity’s research portfolio would achieve this score)
Forefront	Work which is at the forefront internationally and which may have an important and substantial impact on understanding, policy or practice; likely to make a significant contribution to knowledge, or to patient care; Worthy of award.
Competitive	Work which is internationally competitive and will make a significant contribution; Likely to produce novel and worthwhile data. Consider for award.
Good	Work which is satisfactory but not outstanding. May contribute to knowledge but unlikely to make an impact.
Not Competitive	Work which is not considered competitive.
Unsatisfactory	Unsatisfactory or poor quality work.Flawed, marginal or unnecessarily repetitious of other work. Not worthy of support.