“Poor grantsmanship will, and often does, turn very good science into an unfundable grant proposal” Dr. Gershim Asiki, the Chronic Diseases Management Unit Lead

A few months ago, we sent a proposal we considered very strong to one of the major funders. The proposed science addressed pressing issues, employed a robust methodology and comprised an experienced team including external partners. We were excited and hopeful. But the result came back quickly, and the funder’s response was “……. unfortunately your proposed work is not in remit.”  This is to mean that our proposed study is not aligned with the funder’s overall strategy

While the proposal was deemed strong, the reason for withdrawing it at the screening stage was misalignment with the donor’s remit. An introspection also acknowledged that the application had not followed the requisite peer review processes. Proposals can fail the review process due to a number of reasons including poorly defined problem statement and objectives, weak methodology, poor ethical justification, weak team profile, ambitious budget, lack of innovation, unclear feasibility, and poor demonstration of APHRC’s value-add- issues that peer review can help identify and strengthen.

This is not an isolated incident. Oftentimes researchers at the Center spend a great deal of time and energy on a proposal, staying late refining every section, ensuring the science is sound and the budget is reasonable, only to find out that the proposal did not even make it past the first review stage. While several variables are at play, we must focus on a critical missing link: rigorous peer review.

Peer review is a structured, objective evaluation of a proposal by a multidisciplinary team. It allows someone else to look at a proposal with a fresh pair of eyes to spot weaknesses, gaps, or misalignments that the authors, immersed in the writing and their own work, might overlook.  As such, submitting a proposal without external or internal feedback is a missed opportunity to strengthen quality, competitiveness and overall chances of securing funding. In an increasingly shifting funder environment a lot more time should be dedicated to developing fundable proposals.

However, we also recognize that peer review alone does not guarantee success. It is important to remember that a proposal’s outcome depends on a much wider ecosystem of factors that often lie beyond our internal influence. It is therefore imperative that we adopt a systems-thinking approach; always aware that donor remits can shift, thematic focuses can narrow, and review panels may prioritise geographic partnerships that are not always transparent to applicants.

The funding landscape is shaped by many forces outside our influence including reviewer preferences or subjectivity, limited funding envelopes against number of quality applications or competitive ratios, midway donor strategy shifts, and geopolitical considerations. Ultimately, proposal success arises from the interplay between what we can control and what we cannot control.

To consistently win more grants and attract high-value grants, we must ensure that every proposal leaving APHRC reflects the highest quality standards. This is where peer review becomes not only helpful but also necessary.

What the Research Governance Framework Says

Interestingly, APHRC’s Research Governance Framework (RGF) already gives clear guidance on a strong institutional mandate for peer review in research publications, protocols and proposal development.

First, the RGF states that “all proposals should undergo scientific review before submission by at least two peer reviewers with the requisite expertise to scrutinize the research methodology, research team profile, and the cost estimates.” This means that every proposal must go through a peer review; it is not optional. The framework also specifies that proposals must be submitted for review at least two weeks before the funder’s deadline to allow adequate time for meaningful feedback and revision.

Secondly, the framework establishes an internal quality review requirement that “all proposals, whether led by APHRC or by a partner, must be reviewed for quality prior to submission.” For collaborative projects, this includes evaluating APHRC’s contribution to ensure it is substantial and strategic. Peer review helps protect our institutional brand, ensuring that every partnership reinforces APHRC’s visibility, credibility, and scientific value.

Peer review is a compliance requirement, essential for meeting the RGF’s standards of institutional excellence.

Why Peer Review Matters Now More Than Ever

When done well, peer review offers more than just technical comments. Think of it as a mirror showing us exactly how a funder will see our proposal. It helps us find and fix weaknesses in our proposals early, before funders do. The process sharpens our logic, validates our methodology, and demonstrates feasibility. It helps teams ensure that their proposals stand out among dozens of others.

Peer review also helps us avoid the most common reasons proposals are rejected including poor alignment with funder goals, lack of innovation, unrealistic budgets or timelines, and weak monitoring frameworks. All these problems can be caught and fixed with a timely, structured review.

Making Peer Review Work in Practice

Embedding peer review into proposal development does not mean adding unnecessary bureaucracy. It means creating a smart, supportive system where peer review is routine, efficient, and purposeful. The key is good timing and coordination as stipulated in the Center’s guidelines. Submitting a proposal for review at least two weeks before the donor deadline allows reviewers sufficient time to read, reflect, and provide constructive feedback.

Peer review is equally important when resubmitting an unsuccessful proposal, whether to the same or a different funder. Peer reviewers help ensure that the funder’s comments have been thoroughly addressed, key issues strengthened, and the proposal better aligned with the funder’s priorities and strategies, thereby increasing its chances of success upon resubmission. That is why peer reviewers should be engaged at every stage of the proposal development process, as their input is vital to producing high-quality and competitive proposals.

Embedding Peer Review in Our Culture through Business Development Collaboration

As the bridge between research ambition and donor investment, the Business Development (BD) team plays a central role in mainstreaming peer review. BD is well-positioned to ensure that proposal pipelines integrate peer review milestones, that timelines are respected, and that internal reviewers are identified early in the process.

As such, peer review should be viewed as a competitive advantage and a strategic enabler. It is what allows APHRC to compete for high-value, multi-year grants that fund innovation, policy influence, and institutional strengthening. The stronger our internal quality control, the greater our external credibility.

In the coming months, BD plans to strengthen proposal peer review coordination, develop simplified review templates, and track the performance of peer-reviewed proposals compared to those that were not reviewed. This will give us data-driven evidence of the value that peer review adds both in success rates and in dollar amounts.

Quality Is Everyone’s Responsibility

We all share a collective responsibility to protect the integrity and reputation of APHRC’s research. Every proposal that carries the Center’s name should represent our very best work that is scientifically sound, innovative, feasible, and aligned with donor priorities.

So, as you work on your next proposal, ask yourself: has it been peer-reviewed?

Let us make peer review part of our DNA and a core practice that reflects APHRC’s commitment to excellence, credibility, and leadership in African research and development.