The Grant Review Process

The Grant Review Process has been designed to provide all applicants an equal opportunity to be considered for available grants and to avoid any conflict of interest of those involved in the process.

Each grant submitted undergoes a rigorous peer review process. An independent Grants Review Committee oversees the peer review process. Members of the Committee are highly experienced research grant reviewers.

The Grants Review Committee for the inaugural round of grants was chaired by Associate Professor Marie Pirotta (University of Melbourne), and other members were Associate Professor Philip Bolton (University of Newcastle) and Professor Adrian Esterman (University of South Australia).

In 2012 the Grants Review Committee consisted of Associate Professor Marie Pirotta (University of Melbourne), and other members were Associate Professor Philip Bolton (University of Newcastle) and Professor Charlie Xue (RMIT University).

The Committee allocates a minimum of two independent assessors to each grant. The independent assessors are then contacted by the Grants Review Coordinator requesting their assessments and comments on each project. When the assessors’ reports are received, each of the members of the Grants Review Committee considers these reports and gives each grant application a score against defined criteria. Scores from each Committee member are then collated and averaged, and each grant is ranked accordingly. This rank is reviewed by the Grants Review Committee, who then make recommendations for funding for each grant.

The Committee report is then forwarded to the Grants Review Coordinator who makes recommendations to the Board of COCA Research Limited on which applications should be awarded grants, based on the ranking of each application and the total funds available. The Directors of COCA Research Limited then determine which grants are to be funded based on these recommendations. Those Directors who have a conflict of interest in the grant round do not take part in any discussions or decisions on the allocation of the grants.