Most of our funding opportunities offer researchers the chance to respond to comments from peer reviewers. A well-written response can reassure the board or panel you really can do what you propose to do, and increase your chances of getting funded. MRC Peer Review Programme Manager Rachel Prosser asked board and panel members for tips on how best to respond to peer review comments.
Watching funding decisions being made at MRC board or panel meetings is an opportunity we offer to early career researchers to learn about how the peer review process works. With transparency the theme of this year’s Peer Review Week, MRC Peer Review Programme Manager Rachel Prosser asked some recent observers to share what they learned from the experience.
Today the MRC and a group of partner organisations issued an update on what we have been doing to address of reproducibility and reliability of research since the publication of the report of our symposium on the issue last year. Dr Frances Rawle, our Head of Corporate Governance and Policy, talks about what we’ve done so far.
Reproducibility is everyone’s problem. If we can’t ensure that our results are reliable, then our research can’t improve human health.
Everyone involved in biomedical research, including funders, individual researchers, research institutes, universities, publishers and academies – must play a part in improving research practices.
We’ve worked across the sector to discover the main causes of irreproducible results and what we can do to improve the situation. Read more