European Peer Review Guide - European Science Foundation

1.1 Key definitions
1.3 How to use this Guide
8
European Peer Review Guide
In order to facilitate the establishment of a common
set of terminologies for the purpose of interpreting
the content of this Peer Review Guide, a few
key definitions are provided in the Appendix 1:
Glossary.
1.2 Applicability
This document is aimed at any organisation involved
in funding and performing research, notably:
• Public research funding organisations;
• Research performing organisations;
• Research councils;
• Private foundations;
• Charities.
The Guide has been developed in a European
context, but will be largely relevant beyond the
continent. The suggested guidelines are designed to
promote common standards that adhere to accepted
good practices on a voluntary basis. In particular,
they aim to support intergovernmental or interorganisational
activities through the identification
and establishment of benchmarks and prevailing
approaches necessary to manage multi-stakeholder
programmes.
The applicability of the Guide stops at the level of
granting of the awards. Hence, for example, ex-post
evaluation of funded research – which generally has
strong reliance on peer (or expert) review – has not
been explicitly included in the Guide1.
In order to make the best use of this document,
readers with a general interest in the subject are
recommended to browse through the chapters of
Part I. The content of the first Part is structured
according to three thematic and easily recognisable
areas: the first comprises an introduction to
peer review in a general sense (Chapter 1); a typology
of funding instruments (Chapter 2); and the
pillars of good practice in peer review (Chapter 3).
A second area focuses on peer review methodology
(Chapter 4, from Sections 4.1 to 4.10) and a
third area specifically describes the variants of the
funding instruments and their implication for peer
review (Sections 4.11 to 4.13).
Science management practitioners with the
intention of gathering concrete information on good
practices specific to the peer review of particular
funding instruments are advised first to review the
chapters of Part I, with particular attention given
to Chapter 4, and then to consult their programme
of interest in the corresponding chapter in Part II.
The chapters of Part II are meant to provide information
on the state-of-the-art and benchmarking of
peer review practices specific to the selected funding
instruments.
1. For ex-post evaluation, see the ESF Member Organisation Forum
on Evaluation of Funding Schemes and Research Programmes’
activities, in particular the report: Evaluation in National Research
Funding Agencies: approaches, experiences and case studies, at:
http://www.esf.org/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&file=
fileadmin/be_user/CEO_Unit/MO_FORA/MOFORUM_
Evaluation/moforum_evaluation.pdf&t=1296135324&hash=9a6f4
76733d58e8f9ff738ceb755bf08