Introduction

Allocation of research funds relies on peer review to support funding decisions, and these processes can be susceptible to biases and inefficiencies. The aim of this work was to determine which past interventions to peer review and decision-making have worked to improve research funding practices, how they worked, and for whom.

Methods

Realist synthesis of peer-review publications and grey literature reporting interventions in peer review for research funding.

Results

We analysed 96 publications and 36 website sources. Sixty publications enabled us to extract stakeholder-specific context-mechanism-outcomes configurations (CMOCs) for 50 interventions, which formed the basis of our synthesis. Shorter applications, reviewer and applicant training, virtual funding panels, enhanced decision models, institutional submission quotas, applicant training in peer review and grant-writing reduced interrater variability, increased relevance of funded research, reduced time taken to write and review applications, promoted increased investment into innovation, and lowered cost of panels.

Conclusions

Reports of 50 interventions in different areas of peer review provide useful guidance on ways of solving common issues with the peer review process. Evidence of the broader impact of these interventions on the research ecosystem is still needed, and future research should aim to identify processes that consistently work to improve peer review across funders and research contexts.

中文翻译：

---

什么对研究资助中的同行评审和决策有效：现实主义综合

介绍

研究资金的分配依赖于同行评审来支持资助决策，这些过程可能容易受到偏见和效率低下的影响。这项工作的目的是确定过去哪些同行评审和决策干预措施有助于改善研究资助实践，它们是如何工作的，以及为谁工作。

方法

同行评审出版物和灰色文献报告干预的现实主义综合，以获取研究经费。

结果

我们分析了 96 份出版物和 36 个网站资源。60 篇出版物使我们能够为 50 种干预措施提取特定于利益相关者的上下文-机制-结果配置 (CMOC)，这构成了我们综合的基础。更短的申请、审查员和申请人培训、虚拟资助小组、增强的决策模型、机构提交配额、申请人在同行评审和资助写作方面的培训减少了跨界变异性、增加了受资助研究的相关性、减少了撰写和审查申请所需的时间、促进了增加创新投资，降低面板成本。

结论

同行评审不同领域的 50 项干预报告为解决同行评审过程中常见问题的方法提供了有用的指导。仍然需要这些干预措施对研究生态系统产生更广泛影响的证据，未来的研究应该旨在确定始终致力于改善跨资助者和研究环境的同行评审的过程。