This step is about making sure that reviewers are well prepared to assess inclusive gendered innovation (IGI) once the proposals are in. Even if the right people are on the panel, they still need clear guidance on what to look for, how to recognise quality, and how IGI fits into the overall evaluation.
Reviewers rely on the tools and instructions you give them. If IGI is not included in the evaluation form or not mentioned in the briefing, they may assume it is not part of the assessment. This is especially true when IGI is still new or unfamiliar in the field.
Clarity and consistency matter. If your call encourages applicants to consider gender and inclusion, that same expectation should be reflected in the scoring criteria, evaluation questions, and any supporting materials. Otherwise, reviewers are left to decide for themselves whether it matters.
This step is not about turning reviewers into experts. It is about giving them just enough structure to apply the criteria fairly. That can include short explanations, guiding questions, or examples of what a good response might look like. It can also include advice on how to handle weak or missing responses.
Use this step to support your reviewers with the tools and language they need to recognise and reward inclusion as part of research and innovation quality and excellence.
- understand why briefing reviewers matters for IGI: You are aware of how small adjustments in tools and instructions can support more consistent assessment.
- know where to reflect IGI in your evaluation process: You can identify which forms or rubrics to adapt.
- can provide reviewers with basic guidance: You are able to share clear, lightweight materials that help reviewers engage with IGI.
- are better prepared to respond to reviewer uncertainty: You have examples or prompts ready if reviewers ask how to assess IGI relevance.
- can improve the alignment between call expectations and assessment: You ensure that what is encouraged in the call is also visible in the review process.
- feel more confident that IGI won’t be overlooked in scoring: You have built in reminders that help reviewers take inclusion into account.
Our findings show that small gaps in guidance can lead to confusion, inconsistency, or missed opportunities to recognise inclusion:
- IGI is not reflected in evaluation criteria: If it’s not built into forms or scoring, reviewers are unlikely to consider it.
- Briefings are too general or too short: Without examples or prompts, reviewers may not understand what IGI looks like.
- Reviewers lack confidence in assessing IGI: Supportive reviewers may hesitate if they’re unsure how to judge responses.
- Inclusion is treated as optional or unclear: Vague instructions can make IGI seem unrelated to research quality.
- Internal alignment is missing: Mixed messages from staff or documents create inconsistent expectations.
- Examples are too generic or missing: Reviewers struggle without field-relevant illustrations of what to look for.
- Time pressure reduces attention to IGI: Reviewers may skip or skim this part if it feels unclear or unfamiliar.
These actions can help reviewers assess IGI more confidently and consistently, without adding complexity to the review process.
- Reflect IGI in evaluation forms and criteria: Make sure inclusion is visible in scoring, rubrics, or qualitative guidance.
- Include short prompts in reviewer materials: Add a sentence or question to help reviewers consider gender relevance or user diversity.
- Share practical examples where possible: Field-specific illustrations help reviewers recognise what IGI can look like in practice.
- Use briefings to clarify expectations: A few minutes in a panel meeting or a note in the instructions can shift how IGI is understood.
- Explain how to assess weak or missing responses: Reviewers need to know what to do when IGI is poorly addressed or ignored.
- Coordinate guidance across your team: Align messaging in forms, emails, helpdesks, and panel meetings to avoid mixed signals.