The role of a public reviewer
Public reviewers play an important role in helping the HRB fund high-quality, relevant health research. Including the perspectives of the public is an important part of our grant review process.
Reviewers bring the voice and perspective of the public, independent of organisations or specific causes, to contribute to our funding decisions.
Why public reviewers matter
Each funding application received by the HRB undergoes an international peer review before a funding decision is made. Peer reviews are carried out by experienced researchers with expertise in the area of the proposed research. They ensure that the research we fund is of the best possible scientific standard.
Public reviewers provide a different but equally valuable perspective. They help us assess the quality of the PPI within applications.
By asking members of the public for their opinion, we can help to ensure that researchers ask the right questions, that the right group of PPI collaborators are part of the decision making around the research, and that the people participating in the research are approached in the right way.
Public reviewers are not expected to assess scientific methods, technical content or research theory.
How the HRB fund research
The HRB supports a wide range of health research, including:
- Research aimed at improving patient outcomes.
- Research focused on the delivery and improvement of health services.
- Research that promotes wellbeing and prevents ill health.
Researchers apply for funding through a variety of HRB funding schemes, including project grants, programme awards, career development opportunities, networks and research infrastructure initiatives
Applications are assessed through a competitive review process, and only a proportion of applications are funded.
Find out more about how the HRB funds research here.
What a public reviewer does
Researchers applying for HRB funding complete an application form saying what research they want to do and how they want to do it. As a public reviewer, you will be asked to review 1-4 of these research proposals (you choose how many). You will capture your thoughts in a short assessment report within a pre-agreed period of time (usually 4 weeks). The review can be done from home, in your own time, and you will be paid a standard fee for each application reviewed.
Your review is written from your perspective as a member of the public or informed by your knowledge and experience as a patient, carer and or user of health services. We do not expect you to have lived experience in the area of the research.
What public reviewers assess
Public reviewers assess the quality of PPI in funding applications, including its role in shaping the research and plans for involvement throughout the research. This is an opportunity to identify areas where PPI could be strengthened from a public perspective. Reviewers also provide an overall rating.
Reviewers also provide an overall rating of the quality of PPI in the application. Further information is available in the public reviewer guidance notes and review form below.
How long a review takes
People often ask how much time is involved.
In a survey conducted in 2024, most public reviewers reported completing their reviews over two to three days, spending up to two hours at a time reviewing applications.
Download the findings from this survey
How public reviews contribute to funding decisions
Each application receives feedback from two public reviewers
Both public and scientific review are shared anonymously with applicants, who are given an opportunity to respond
The second stage of the review process is called the panel review stage. Review panels are established for each scheme. Panels are made up of international scientific experts from a range of backgrounds. For some schemes, public reviewers are included as panel members. The reviews and the related applicant responses are made available to the panel before they meet. The panel will take the reviews, rating and applicant response to the public review into consideration in their decisions on who to recommend for funding.
