Our peer review process

When a new research centre is needed for us to meet the goals of our organisational strategy, we first obtain agreement from our Trustees that we are in a financial position to fund a new centre for 5 years. We next draw up a centre brief and detailed selection criteria, taking into consideration established research priorities (eg those defined by a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership) and the views of individuals and bodies (eg our Parent Voices Committee, professional bodies such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives, policy and research experts, and grassroots organisations). This brief is circulated widely to universities and professional bodies, inviting them to apply. 

We ask each applicant to articulate a clear vision and route to impact, alongside a full 5-year activity plan that sets out clear milestones and objectives. We also ask the applicant to identify an established leader who could take on the role of Centre Director – this should be somebody who values collaboration and innovation. During the application process, we work with prospective centres to ensure that their ideas are a good fit with Tommy’s goals and meet our criteria. We also ask the prospective centres to seek the views of people with lived experience when developing their core research questions and portfolio of work.

After the deadline for submission, all applications are circulated to the Tommy’s Research Review Group, which consists of a Scientific Advisory Committee, a Parent Voices Committee and an Implementation and Improvement Advisory Committee. Collectively, these external committees bring together scientific and clinical experts, as well as people with lived experience. We also invite policy makers to join our selection panel, working alongside the Research Review Group. The selection panel are asked to score each prospective centre against the criteria set out in the brief before meeting with the applicants. At this meeting, each applicant is given 1 hour to present their plans and to answer any questions from the panel. Following this conversation, the selection panel members re-evaluate their scoring and submit their completed scoring sheet to the selection administrator who collates the scores of all the members. After all the applicants have presented and all the score sheets are completed and collated, the Co-Chairs of the Research Review Group then lead a discussion about each application, review the scores and reach agreement on which bid has won. This forms a recommendation to Tommy’s Trustees. The selection panel may also recommend that the winning bid is only funded if certain conditions are met.

The Trustees of the charity make the final decision about which centre is selected for funding, based on the recommendations of the selection panel. If there are two equal bids, the Trustees will interview each applicant and decide on which is the winning bid, with guidance and advice from the Co-Chairs of the Research Review Group.

To facilitate long-term, strategic planning, Tommy’s operates a 5-yearly (quinquennial) research review cycle to assess the performance and plans of each research centre. This process consists of:

• A quinquennial review, where each centre reports on the progress and impact made in the previous 5-year funding cycle, as well as their plans for the next 5 years
• Annual review of written progress reports, focusing on key research milestones and performance indicators
• A 3-year checkpoint review, where key metrics will be assessed at a face-to-face meeting

This process is overseen by our Scientific Advisory Committee and our Parent Voices Committee. These groups are part of the Tommy’s Research Review Group. 

Before the quinquennial review, our research centres prepare detailed reports that are circulated to the Scientific Advisory Committee and the Parent Voices Committee. These reports must include a 5-year strategy proposal from the centre, alongside a synopsis of their impact over the previous funding cycle. Centres also outline their research plans for the next 5 years and submit a 5-year budget. Our Research Review Group read these reports, before convening for a face-to-face quinquennial review meeting, which is also attended by Centre Directors and Centre Senior Leadership Teams. At this meeting, each Centre Director gives a short presentation outlining the vision and strategy for their centre, after which there is an opportunity for the Research Review Group to ask any questions they may have. Each centre is reviewed separately, and each member of the Research Review Group is given a specific area of focus before the meeting.

After completing these discussions, the Research Review Group agree on a set of recommendations to be made to the Tommy’s Trustees. These recommendations may span a spectrum, ranging from minor adjustments to more substantial changes, all aimed at enhancing the quality, alignment with objectives, and value for money of each 5-year research proposal. Following the meeting, the reviewers draft a report outlining their recommendations. Tommy’s Trustees receive a copy of these peer review reports and agree any actions to be taken, including whether they are satisfied that the 5-year plans and year 1 budget should be signed off. Feedback is then sent to the Centre Directors, who must update their 5-year plans and year 1 budget based on the reviewers’ recommendations and conditions. Each centre is then required to produce milestone-focused activity reports and annual budgets every year, which are reviewed by members of the Research Review Group. Approval of annual budgets is contingent upon receipt of satisfactory external reports and evidence that milestones are being met.

At the 3-year checkpoint, the Centre Directors and representatives of the Research Review Group meet face-to-face to explore the progress, effectiveness and alignment of each Centre’s research activities with the original grant objectives. These discussions guide decision-making for the remainder of the 5-year period, ensuring the optimal use of resources for maximum impact. The Research Review Group also assess whether the centre has taken on board any recommendations made during the quinquennial review. If there are significant concerns about a centre at this checkpoint, the reviewers may recommend that Tommy’s cease funding the centre at the end of the 5-year cycle.

Our implementation centre, Tommy’s National Centre for Maternity Improvement, is peer reviewed annually. This process is overseen by our Implementation and Improvement Advisory Committee, which is part of the Tommy’s Research Review Group. At the start of the peer review process, the centre submits an annual activity report alongside a budget submission for the following financial year. These documents are reviewed by the Implementation and Improvement Advisory Committee, who subsequently attend a peer review meeting with the Centre Director and Senior Leadership Team. During this meeting, the Centre Director gives a short presentation about the centre’s work over the last year, including any updates since the reports were written. Members of the Implementation and Improvement Advisory Committee can then ask questions, with each member of the committee given a specific area of focus in advance of the meeting. 

After completing these discussions, the Implementation and Improvement Advisory Committee agree on a set of recommendations to be made to the Tommy’s Trustees. These recommendations may span a spectrum, ranging from minor adjustments to more substantial changes. Following the meeting, committee members draft a report outlining the comments and recommendations of the whole panel. This is sent to the Tommy’s Trustees, who agree any actions to be taken, including whether they are satisfied that the budget should be signed off. Feedback is then sent to the Centre Director, who must update their plans and budget based on the reviewers’ recommendations and conditions.