Peer Review: A Strategic Edge for Winning High-Value Health Research Grants

Abstract

Securing high-value health research grants requires more than sound science it demands rigorous proposal development processes, including structured peer review. This article reflects on the experiences of researchers at the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC), where strong proposals have at times failed at the screening stage due to misalignment with donor remits and the absence of adequate internal peer review. Peer review is defined as a structured, objective evaluation of a proposal by a multidisciplinary team that helps identify weaknesses, gaps, and misalignments that proposal authors may overlook. APHRC's Research Governance Framework (RGF) already mandates that all proposals undergo scientific review by at least two peer reviewers with relevant expertise before submission, and that proposals be submitted for review at least two weeks before the funder's deadline. The article argues that peer review should be embedded as a core institutional practice and competitive advantage, helping researchers address common causes of proposal rejection such as poor alignment with funder goals, weak methodology, unrealistic budgets, and lack of innovation. It also acknowledges that proposal success depends on a broader ecosystem of factors beyond institutional control, including shifting donor strategies, competitive funding ratios, and geopolitical considerations. The Business Development team at APHRC is positioned to mainstream peer review into proposal pipelines, develop simplified review templates, and generate data-driven evidence of the value peer review adds to grant success rates.