Scientific Grant Peer Review Platform

The Scientific Grant Peer Review Platform manages the review of research applications: it helps program staff build panels, flags possible conflicts of interest between reviewers and applicants, and assigns applications to reviewers. Reviewers score and critique in one place, under single-blind or anonymized review as your program chooses, and panels meet with scores and discussion recorded. Every conflict decision, score and recommendation is kept with its reasoning for program officials, oversight staff and appeals.

The problem it solves

Research funding agencies review large numbers of applications each cycle, and the integrity of the result depends on matching each application with qualified reviewers who have no conflict of interest. Conflicts are usually found from reviewers' own disclosures and staff knowledge, which misses co-authorships, shared institutions and past mentoring relationships. Assignments, scores and critiques move through spreadsheets and email, anonymization is applied by hand, and when an applicant appeals or an auditor asks how a decision was made, the record is incomplete.

Who it’s for

• Federal research funding agencies and their review offices
• Scientific review officers and program officers who run panels
• External scientific reviewers and panel chairs
• Grants management and program leadership who make funding decisions
• Ethics officials, inspectors general and auditors who review the process

1. Receive and prepareApplications arrive from your submission system and are checked, grouped by topic and prepared for the review mode the program has chosen.
2. Build panels and check conflictsProgram staff find qualified reviewers, and the platform flags possible conflicts from disclosures, publication and affiliation data. Staff decide on each flag and record the reason.
3. Review and scoreReviewers read assigned applications, write critiques against your criteria and enter preliminary scores before the meeting.
4. Meet and recommendPanels discuss applications with conflicted members excluded, enter final scores, and the platform assembles summary statements and the record for funding decisions.

Conflict-of-interest flags

Possible conflicts between reviewers and applicants flagged from institutional affiliations, co-authorship, mentoring and collaboration records, and disclosures, each with the evidence behind it.

Recorded conflict decisions

Every flag is confirmed or cleared by a named review officer with a reason, and the decision is kept with the review record.

Reviewer expertise matching

Candidate reviewers suggested by comparing their expertise and publications with each application's topic, for staff to accept or reject.

Single-blind or anonymized review

Choose the review mode per program; for anonymized review, applicant-identifying details are withheld from reviewer copies and checked by staff.

Assignment management

Assign applications to reviewers with load limits and primary, secondary and discussant roles, blocked where an unresolved conflict exists.

Structured critiques and scoring

Critique templates follow your review criteria, and scores use your scale, with completeness checks before submission.

Panel meeting support

Discussion order, conflicted-member exclusion, final scoring and discussion notes for in-person, virtual or hybrid meetings.

Summary statement drafting

Summary statements assembled from critiques, scores and discussion notes for the review officer to edit and release.

Reviewer certifications

Conflict-of-interest and confidentiality certifications collected from every reviewer before they see an application.

Score analysis

Score distributions by reviewer and panel, so staff can see where a reviewer scores far from colleagues and follow up.

Reviewer pool

Reviewer profiles with expertise, past service, availability and disclosures, maintained across review cycles.

Review record and audit trail

Every assignment, conflict decision, score, edit and release recorded with the person and time, for appeals and oversight.

Scientific review officer

Builds panels, decides on conflicts, assigns applications and runs meetings

Reviewer

Reviews assigned applications, writes critiques and enters scores

Panel chair

Leads discussion and helps the review officer keep the meeting on track

Program officer

Sees review results for their portfolio and prepares funding recommendations

Approving official

Approves funding recommendations within their delegated authority

Auditor (read-only)

Reviews the record of the process without changing anything

Application submission

Applications and their documents received from the submission system your agency uses.

Grants management

Review results and approved recommendations sent to your grants management system for award processing.

Publication and affiliation data

Publication and affiliation records from sources your agency licenses or approves, used to suggest reviewers and flag possible conflicts.

Reviewer disclosures

Financial interest and relationship disclosures collected in the platform or received from your existing disclosure process.

Single sign-on

Federal staff sign in through your agency identity provider (SAML or OpenID Connect); external reviewers through the identity method your agency approves.

Meeting tools

Meeting links and attendance from the video conferencing service your agency uses, recorded against panel sessions.

Work API

Review status, scores and results available to your data warehouse and reporting tools through the Moraph Work API.

Records kept in the United States

Applications, reviews and reviewer data are hosted in the United States region.

Cleared support lane

Support tickets from federal clients are handled only by US citizens with active security clearances.

Access by assignment

Reviewers see only their assigned applications, and conflicts block access automatically.

Encryption under controlled keys

Client data is encrypted with keys Moraph staff cannot access without explicit, time-bound authorization.

Complete audit trail

Every view, assignment, conflict decision, score, edit and release is recorded with the person and time, and cannot be edited.

AI proposes, people decide

Reviewer suggestions, conflict flags and draft summary statements are proposals; review officers decide on each, and scores come only from reviewers.

Moraph cloud, United States

Hosted and operated by Moraph in the United States region, with records kept in the US.

Dedicated environment

A single-tenant environment for agencies that require isolation, scoped in the proposal.

With a managed service

Optionally run alongside a Moraph managed service for administration, reviewer support during review cycles and integration operations.

Process review

We map your review process with your review office: review modes, criteria, scoring scales, panel types, conflict rules and approval steps.

Conflict rules and data sources

The relationships that count as possible conflicts, and how far back they look, are set with your ethics officials, and approved publication and affiliation sources are connected.

Integration with submission and grants systems

Application intake and results output are connected to your submission and grants management systems and tested with sample records.

Reviewer pool migration

Existing reviewer profiles, expertise and service history are migrated, and reviewers are invited to confirm their profiles and disclosures.

Pilot cycle

One or more panels run on the platform in a cycle you choose, with conflict flags compared with your existing process and adjustments made before wider use.

Training and go-live

Review officers, program staff and approving officials are trained on their workflows, and reviewers receive guidance written for them.

• Conflict flags are possible conflicts, found from the data available. They can miss relationships that are not in that data, and they can flag relationships that are not conflicts. Review officers decide on every flag, and reviewers remain responsible for their own disclosures.
• It does not score applications or make funding decisions. Scores come from reviewers, and funding decisions are made by your authorized officials.
• Anonymized review removes identifying details the platform can detect; applications may still contain clues to the applicant's identity, so staff check reviewer copies before release.
• It is not an application submission portal or a grants management system. It works between the systems you already use for those.
• Draft summary statements are proposals assembled from critiques and notes, and must be edited and released by the review officer.
• Publication and affiliation data comes from sources your agency licenses or approves; their coverage limits what can be flagged.
• Moraph holds no FedRAMP authorization for this product. We map controls and provide documentation to support your agency's own authorization decision.
• Advisory council or board review, where your program requires it, takes place under your agency's procedures; the platform can provide the records for it.

• Rerun the conflict check for a past panel and compare the flags with the conflicts your staff identified
• Configure one program's criteria and scoring scale and have a reviewer complete a critique
• Check anonymized reviewer copies of sample applications for remaining identifying details
• Run a mock panel meeting and confirm conflicted members are excluded from discussion and scoring
• Reconstruct the full record for one application as you would for an appeal
• Confirm role separation between reviewers, review officers, program officers and approving officials