Inclusivity and peer-review: the role of unprotected characteristics

This blog was kindly authored by Robert MacIntosh, Pro Vice Chancellor for Research at the University of the West of Scotland

Research funders want their investment to support the best researchers pursuing the best ideas to deliver the biggest impact. Peer review is the long-established method of ensuring that subject experts guide decisions about which proposals to fund, but do the best ideas always win the day?

The EDI Caucus, a £3.4m project funded by UKRI and the British Academy, has developed evidence to support inclusivity in the UK’s research and innovation ecosystem. We have explored peer-review as it pertains to the assessment of research bids and our findings indicate that funders consciously engage with the nine characteristics protected under UK law (age, disability, gender, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religious beliefs, sex and sexual orientation) when addressing the diversity of those receiving research funding. The EDI agenda has been challenged in recent years by a changing political narrative, but we found both funders and the organisations which employ researchers and innovators deploying a range of practices to enhance inclusivity.

Despite well-intended EDI policies and practices, the outcomes of peer review for research funding remain striking. The 24 universities of the UK’s Russell Group secure over £1 billion a year in research grants and contracts from international businesses, governments and charities. This represents 70% of all such monies won by UK universities, with a similarly large proportion of all UKRI funding going to the same subset of universities. That many of the best researchers with the best ideas choose to work at a subset of all UK universities isn’t a surprise. Indeed, it plays into the recent specialisation narrative promoted by senior figures in government and UKRI with the clear implication that individual universities should focus their research efforts into areas of genuine excellence.

The concentration of research funding in a subset of universities does however introduce a potential tension between excellence and inclusion. Our research found funders monitoring the recipients of awards through the lens of protected characteristics and acknowledging that there is more work to be done in supporting underrepresented communities of researchers and innovators in competitive, peer-review processes. However, the views we gathered from those involved in the peer-review process suggest that EDI issues in peer-review need to consider issues which fall outwith legally defined protected characteristics because there are subtle, significant and specific issues that arise in research and innovation careers.

Institutional mission group, contract type, a researcher’s first language, their caring responsibilities, geographic location or methodological preferences are just a few of the issues that our research identified as influencing how individuals experienced peer-review. We refer to these as unprotected characteristics. Those working in less research-intensive environments face restricted access to the kinds of peer-support, mentoring and guidance that helps shape successful bids. One of our interviewees described the importance of their “log book of phrases from successful grants”. Such tacit knowledge is more widely available in an organisation populated by colleagues with recent or current experience of successfully securing funding. Innovations like narrative CVs are intended to help equalise opportunity, but access to insight from those actively involved in peer-review remains vital. The provision of editorial oversight, preparatory work and the screening of draft proposals is not a uniform experience across different universities.

The Research Excellence Framework (REF) guides the distribution of circa £2bn of recurring funding per annum and, whilst it differs from the process of running a call for proposals, REF is perhaps the highest profile example of peer review in the UK. REF 2029 launched with an overt intention to encourage and support applications to REF panels from individuals across diverse backgrounds, career stages, and lived experiences. There was a shift from nominations led by institutions and learned societies to one which allowed individuals to self-nominate. There was also a commitment to proactively reach out to underrepresented community networks, using established communication channels and partnerships to share information about REF panel opportunities. The first phase of panel recruitment concluded in September 2025 with individual applications being scrutinised before panels were formed. Self-nomination resulted in one institution, the University of Manchester, finding 29 colleagues involved in REF panel in some capacity. There are, however, 30 UK universities with no representation on REF panels. Those universities with no involvement in REF panels are typically smaller, modern and less research-intensive institutions, as would be flagged by a review of unprotected characteristics. Colleagues in those universities will find it harder to access to the kinds of tacit insight which enhances the prospects of successful research bids and higher quality REF submissions over future REF cycles.

Systemic patterns permeate the outcome of peer review and change will be required if these patterns are to be disrupted. The EDI Caucus’ good practice guide offers advice on 16 stages in the peer review process, from the early stages of publicising a new call to the eventual process of providing feedback to unsuccessful applicants. Both funders and applicants are operating in a pressurised environment and the guide offers practical advice based on examples of good practice.

Whilst the best ideas should always win out, individual researchers face real impediments in producing credible, high-quality submissions. Within the academy, we each have a shared responsibility to ensure that our approach to peer review balances excellence and inclusion by recognising the mix of protected and unprotected characteristics that shape individual careers.