Sign in
Book a walkthrough

Home/Solutions/By sector/Research funding

Solutions by sector

Peer review for funding and grants

Thousands of proposals inside a fixed window, panels that have to stay conflict free, and a decision that may be challenged a year after it was taken.

Book a walkthrough
See a panel workflow

Three things that are true here and nowhere else

01

The window does not move

A call closes, the panel meets on a date set months earlier, and everything in between has to happen on schedule.

What PeerPath doesStages, reminders and escalation run to the dates you set when the call opened.
02

Conflicts are structural rather than incidental

In a small field, the people qualified to judge a proposal are often the people who cannot.

What PeerPath doesDeclaration is a workflow step, and a declared conflict removes visibility rather than relying on anyone remembering.
03

The decision has to survive being questioned

Applicants ask why. Trustees ask how. Both answers should come out of the file rather than out of somebody's memory.

What PeerPath doesEvery score, every change and every declaration is on the record with its author and its timestamp.
Outline applicationEligibility siftFull proposalPanel scoringModeration meetingAward decisionNot taken forwardFeedback released per policyRe-score
A worked example

A two stage call, with an outline sift and a moderation meeting

An outline stage removes proposals that will not succeed before anyone writes a full application. Scores can be re run after moderation without losing the originals, so a panel can change its mind and still show exactly what it did.

The four capabilities this sector leans on

Submission management

Intake forms with field level validation, built for the call rather than the system.

Submission management →

Peer review workflows

Weighted rubrics, panel roles and conflict rules configured per call.

Peer review workflows →

Reporting and analytics

Outcomes by discipline, institution, panel and score band.

Reporting and analytics →

Data management

Retention and export that satisfy a funder’s own reporting duties.

Data management →

Connections that matter in this sector

Funders are usually connecting to an existing applicant database rather than buying a stack of third party tools.

ORCIDApplicant identity that follows a researcher between institutions and between calls.→API and webhooksAward data pushed into the systems your finance and grants teams already run.→Looker StudioOutcomes by discipline, institution and panel, in the tool your trustees already open.→

Different people ask different questions of the same process. The role pages answer them one constituency at a time.

Editors-in-chief and boardsAuthors and applicants

What buyers in this sector often ask

How do you handle conflicts of interest on a panel?

Declaration is a workflow step rather than an email. A declared conflict removes that reviewer’s visibility of the proposal, and the declaration stays on the record.

Is there a limit on panel size or number of criteria?

No fixed limit. Panels are built from roles, and rubrics take as many weighted criteria as your call needs.

Can scores be normalised across panels?

Yes. Raw and normalised scores are both kept, and reporting can show either.

Can applicants see reviewer feedback?

Your policy decides. Feedback can be released in full, redacted or withheld, set per call rather than fixed by the system.

What can we show trustees?

Aggregated outcomes by discipline, institution, panel and score band, exported into the tool they already read.

Get started

Tell us what you review.
We will show you the workflow.

Walk us through your next call. We will show you the whole thing running in PeerPath.

Book a walkthrough
See pricing