Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC)
DRWF is a member of the Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC), a membership body representing the leading medical and health research charities who deliver high-quality research that saves and improves lives.
Working with member charities and partners, AMRC aims to support voluntary sector effectiveness and advance medical research by developing best practice, providing information and guidance, improving public dialogue about research and science, and influencing government.
As a member, we subscribe to AMRC’s criteria for the use of peer review for allocating funding and support AMRC position statements on the payment of indirect costs in universities and the use of animals in medical research which seeks to replace, refine and reduce the use of animals (3Rs) in research.
Our annual funding round is offered through open competition, and as such, enables funded researchers to access support for both indirect and direct costs of research via the Charity Research Support Fund (CRSF) and NIHR Clinical Research Networks AcoRD agreement.
Further details on the AMRC and its over-arching work can be found on their website.
Rigorous peer review process
As an AMRC member we abide by the five principles of peer review –
To this end, we operate a rigorous peer review process by which our Research Advisory Board, clinical and scientific experts in the field of diabetes and related health, assess applications and reports to ensure that only the highest quality and most effective research, carried out using good or best practice methodologies, receives DRWF funding.
Review of applications for funding
Initial triage is undertaken to ensure that applications are in scope and eligible for DRWF funding. Following which our Board members perform review against the following criteria -
Fellowships: (maximum 30 points)
- Strength of candidates 30%
- Clinical relevance at this time 30%
- Scientific content 30%
- Feasibility within timescale 10%
Pump Priming: (maximum 22 points)
- Quality & practicability of project 46%
- Scientific or clinical importance 27%
- Strength of candidate 27%
External peer reviewers provide comment and score as follows –
0-6 with 0 = no support / 6 = very strong support. A score of 4 is the ‘cut off’ point for funding.
A project that is not fund worthy would score less than 4. A project that is considered fund worthy would score 4 or above.
AMRC audit member organisations and their peer review policy and practices every five years.
I would like to make a regular donation of
I would like to make a single donation of