Stage 1
Applicants complete a short form, by the deadline date set. Please refer to the Bupa Foundation's Strategy for a description of research objectives.
For the short form, applicants need to provide a synopsis of their project, including the following information in approximately one side of A4.
- Project title.
- Duration of project.
- Estimated amount requested.
- Brief rationale.
- Objectives.
- Design and methodology to be employed.
- Relevance to Foundation objectives and potential for public health benefit.
- Sustained impact beyond funding period.
- Project outcomes and deliverables.
- Details of any partners involved.
Short form applications will be reviewed by a sub-scrutiny panel of rotating board members who will advise The Bupa Foundation Board of Governors on eligibility and priority for funding in relation to the Foundation's aims and objectives.
Applicants whose projects are eligible will be given the opportunity to complete a full application using our electronic system, Grant Tracker, via a direct link to the electronic form.
Please note that the Foundation Chairman's decision, advised by the board and sub-scrutiny panel of the Bupa Foundation, is final. No correspondence will be entered into or feedback given regarding the outcome at Stage 1.
Stage 2
Full applications will be sent out to appropriate peer reviewers. For more information please refer to our peer review process below.
Shortlisted full applications and peer review comments will be presented at a Bupa Foundation Board meeting where final decisions will be made. The full applications are given a score out of 10 by each reviewer (1=low, 10=high) against the following criteria:
- originality of the work
- quality of study/design methods
- proposed statistical analysis
- relevance to clinical practice
- relevance to public health
- priority of funding
Any public reviewers' comments will be sent back to applicants anonymously.
Peer review process
Each application is sent to at least four reviewers who are not involved with the application, the work, the applicants or the institution.
Often, three peer reviewers (maximum) are selected from those suggested by the applicant, unless there are reasons why not, for example obvious conflicts of interest or otherwise not suitable.
At least one reviewer will be one blinded eg not suggested by the applicant and often located via suitable literature searches.
Additionally when a reviewer declines the review we always ask them if they can suggest a suitable colleague.
Each reviewer is sent the full application asking if they would be happy to review and provided with a feedback form, which asks the reviewer to rate the application in terms of:
- originality of the work
- quality of study/design methods
- proposed statistical analysis
- relevance to clinical practice
- relevance to public health
- priority of funding
and provide a score out of 10 (1=low, 10=high).
Non-shortlisted applicants will receive an averaged score (out of 10) and any public internal or external reviewer comments.
Shortlisted applications will be reviewed by the board alongside any peer review comments.
The Bupa Foundation is an NIHR partner. One of the requirements for this partnership is an approved and rigorous peer review process.
