{"id":13811,"date":"2018-12-11T14:59:20","date_gmt":"2018-12-11T19:59:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/researchimpact.ca\/?p=13811"},"modified":"2021-11-23T09:33:52","modified_gmt":"2021-11-23T14:33:52","slug":"reviewer-training-to-assess-knowledge-translation-in-funding-applications-is-long-overdue","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/researchimpact.ca\/fr\/archive\/reviewer-training-to-assess-knowledge-translation-in-funding-applications-is-long-overdue\/","title":{"rendered":"Reviewer Training to Assess Knowledge Translation in Funding Applications is Long Overdue"},"content":{"rendered":"

Scarrow, G., Angus, D., & Holmes, B. (2017). Reviewer training to assess knowledge translation in funding applications is long overdue. Research integrity and Peer Review,\u00a02<\/em>(13), pp. 1-7.\u00a0https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s41073-017-0037-8<\/a><\/p>\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n

Background: <\/strong>Health research funding agencies are placing a growing focus on knowledge translation (KT) plans, also known as dissemination and implementation (D&I) plans, in grant applications to decrease the gap between what we know from research and what we do in practice, policy, and further research. Historically, review panels have focused on the scientific excellence of applications to determine which should be funded; however, relevance to societal health priorities, the facilitation of evidence-informed practice and policy, or realizing commercialization opportunities all require a different lens.<\/em><\/p>\n

Discussion: <\/strong>While experts in their respective fields, grant reviewers may lack the competencies to rigorously assess the KT components of applications. Funders of health research\u2014including health charities, non-profit agencies, governments, and foundations\u2014have an obligation to ensure that these components of funding applications are as rigorously evaluated as the scientific components. In this paper, we discuss the need for a more rigorous evaluation of knowledge translation potential by review panels and propose how this may be addressed.<\/em><\/p>\n

Conclusion: <\/strong>We propose that reviewer training supported in various ways including guidelines and KT expertise on review panels and modalities such as online and face-to-face training will result in the rigorous assessment of all components of funding applications, thus increasing the relevance and use of funded research evidence. An unintended but highly welcome consequence of such training could be higher quality D&I or KT plans in subsequent funding applications from trained reviewers.<\/em><\/p>\n

I like this article because I spend so much time helping researchers craft impact strategies (knowledge mobilization\/translation plans) only to (not infrequently) hear that it was only the scientific and training components of the application that were discussed at review. As this article points out, peer reviewers are usually scientific peers with no training in KT, so they will focus on what they know. However, if one goal (not the only goal) of research funding is to develop new knowledge and translate that knowledge into benefits for society then it is incumbent upon funders to train reviewers to also provide a critical review of the impact strategies as well as the intellectual merit of the applications.<\/p>\n

The article points to steps being taken as identified in the literature:<\/p>\n