How we award

We have five research grants committees whose members are experts in basic and clinical cardiovascular research. 

Each of our committees meets four times a year other than the Clinical Studies Committee and the Translational Awards Committee which meet twice a year.

We welcome expressions of interest from experts with relevant experience and expertise to become an independent peer reviewer, and/or a member of our research funding committee. 

We are particularly interested to hear from mid-career researchers with established expertise and from under-represented groups, including women researchers, and researchers from an ethnic minority background. Please click here to learn more.

Our committees

• Project Grants Committee (Project Grants)
• Chairs and Programme Grants Committee (Personal Chairs, Programme Grants, Special Project Grants, New Horizons Grants, Infrastructure Grants and Strategic Initiatives)
• Clinical Studies Committee (Clinical Study Grants). Preliminary Clinical Study Grants are assessed by the Chair and Vice Chair of the Clinical Studies Committee and members of the BHF Senior Research Team. See a flow diagram of the overall Clinical Study Grant application journey and videos explaining the full application assessment process.
• Fellowships Committee (Personal awards)
• Translational Awards Committee (Translational Awards)

All applications are sent to independent peer reviewers before being assessed by the committee. Decisions are based on factors such as relevance to cardiovascular disease, scientific merit, timeliness, relationship to other work in the field, adherence to the principles of the NC3Rs guidance for reduction, refinement and replacement of use of animals, and value for money.

Applications with scientific merit may still be unsuccessful if the hypothesis is poorly described; the project lacks pilot data, experimental detail and power calculations; includes irrelevant information; or does not address overlap with other projects. Unless resubmission is explicitly ruled out by the relevant funding Committee, unsuccessful applications may be revised and resubmitted for consideration once only.

In addition to scientific review, Translational Awards will also be assessed on commercial viability.

We usually provide feedback on unsuccessful applications, and may also defer applications for reconsideration pending further information.

We have made a commitment to support and uphold the principles set out by the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). In accordance with the DORA principles we have introduced the following practices:

• Transparency in how applications and grants are assessed – we have formalised BHF independent expert review guidelines and review forms and a flow diagram of application journeys will be available for applicants on each funding scheme page.
• Responsible use of bibliometrics – we ask applicants not to mention impact factor in their applications. Where publications are listed in applications, reviewers and committee members have been instructed not to use journal-based metrics to assess a researcher’s career history or to make funding decisions.
• An appreciation of the value of all research outputs – where appropriate applicants will soon be asked to provide information regarding relevant research outputs; including but not limited to, datasets, inventions, preprints, protected IP, influence in policy and clinical guidelines, in addition to publications. Reviewers and committee members are required to consider the value of all research outputs in their assessment of research productivity.

See our Conflicts of Interest Policy.