This step is about choosing who evaluates the proposals and what perspectives they bring to the table. Even the best-designed call can fall short if the review panel is not equipped to assess the integration of gender and diversity dimensions or if key perspectives are missing during the assessment process.
Reviewers influence how excellence is defined. If they are unfamiliar with gender and diversity considerations in research content, or if there is no expectation that it matters, proposals that address gender and inclusion meaningfully may not be fully recognised. When the panel is aligned with the programme’s values, proposals that reflect gender and inclusion are more likely to be fairly assessed.
Selection often focuses on disciplinary expertise and seniority. While both matter, they don’t always guarantee to reflect diverse perspectives. In our research we found that including reviewers who are familiar with gender analysis, inclusive innovation, or user engagement strengthens the panel’s capacity to evaluate gender and diversity dimension.
One effective strategy is to assign a specialised reviewer with expertise in gender and inclusion to assess all proposals across the panel. This “horizontal reviewer” brings consistency and ensures that inclusion is evaluated meaningfully, rather than left to disciplinary experts who may not feel confident in this area.
Panel diversity also shapes the tone and credibility of evaluation. Gender balance, career stage diversity, and varied institutional backgrounds can help broaden what is understood as high-quality research and innovation. This is especially relevant when proposals use interdisciplinary, co-creative, or challenge-driven approaches.
This step is not about ticking boxes. It is about ensuring that reviewers reflect the goals and values of your programme, and that they are able to assess proposals accordingly.
Later steps will cover reviewer briefing and evaluation criteria (Step 5) and the assessment process and decision-making (Step 6 and 7). This step is about who is selected to take part in the process in the first place. Use this step to shape a panel that supports fair, informed, and inclusive decision-making.
To avoid repetition across steps, all key sources, case examples, and tools related to reviewer selection, briefing, and assessment will be bundled and made available after Step 7
- understand how reviewer selection affects uptake of gender and diversity dimensions: You can reflect on how the composition of your panel supports or hinders inclusive assessment.
- are able to include relevant perspectives in the panel: You know how to look for expertise in gender analysis, inclusive methods, or user engagement alongside disciplinary knowledge.
- can apply diversity goals to panel composition: You are aware of the value of gender balance, mixed career stages, and broader representation.
- can align reviewer profiles with programme goals: You ensure those selected are familiar with or open to assessing the kinds of inclusion your call encourages.
- are more confident selecting reviewers who support inclusive evaluation: You take steps to create panels that reflect what your call stands for.
- Panels lack relevant expertise: Reviewers may not have experience with gender analysis, inclusive design, or co-creation, which makes it harder to evaluate related aspects in proposals.
- Selection focuses narrowly on technical expertise: Prioritising only disciplinary reputation can unintentionally exclude those with inclusion-related knowledge or perspectives.
- Diversity is not considered in panel composition: Without attention to gender balance, career stage, or institutional variety, review panels may reflect a narrow view of excellence.
- Inclusion is not discussed during selection: If IGI is not explicitly part of reviewer selection criteria, inclusion is less likely to be recognised as a quality feature.
- The same reviewers are reused without reflection: When panels are formed from the usual pool, it can reinforce established norms and limit openness to new approaches.
- Uncertainty about which diversity matters most: Funders may want balanced panels but are unsure how to weigh factors like gender, expertise, or background in relation to the call’s goals.
These actions can help ensure that the people evaluating proposals are aligned with your inclusion goals and equipped to assess IGI meaningfully.
- Include gender and inclusion expertise in reviewer selection. Note relevant experience or demonstrated openness to assessing inclusion in research content.
- Look beyond seniority and discipline. Consider reviewers with knowledge of gender analysis, inclusive methods, or user engagement—especially for content-driven calls.
- Assign a specialised reviewer to assess inclusion across all proposals. This “horizontal reviewer” ensures consistency and supports panels where disciplinary reviewers may not have specific IGI expertise.
- Build balanced panels. Aim for diversity in gender, career stage, institutional background, and geographic representation where relevant.
- Signal expectations early. Let reviewers know that inclusion is part of the programme’s goals and will be assessed in the review process.
- Track your reviewer pool over time. Keep note of who brings gender and inclusion expertise to build institutional memory and improve future selection.
- Coordinate across teams. Align reviewer nomination practices with broader inclusion goals and programme strategies.