The Future of Peer Review: How Grant Evaluation May Evolve

Author : Martin Munyao Muinde
Email : ephantusmartin@gmail.com

Introduction

Peer review remains the canonical safeguard for the integrity of scientific funding, yet growing concerns about transparency, bias, workload and reproducibility suggest that the practice must adapt to keep pace with an increasingly digital global research ecosystem. Granting agencies process exponentially larger application volumes while funders, politicians and taxpayers simultaneously demand faster decisions, stronger accountability and clearer societal impact (Lee & Moher, 2023). Although reforms such as structured scorecards and conflict-of-interest firewalls strengthened assessment rigor, many investigators still report opaque verdicts and inconsistent feedback that hamper resubmission learning. Moreover, conventional reviewer pools are geographically concentrated, limiting epistemic diversity and potentially reinforcing citation-based hierarchies that disadvantage emerging disciplines. Consequently, stakeholders now explore artificial intelligence triage, blockchain ledgers, open review and crowd-sourcing as complementary or alternative mechanisms that could modernize evaluation without eroding scholarly trust.grants.nih.govasm.org

A forward-looking survey of journal editors found that eighty five percent expect the grant peer review landscape to be “substantially transformed” within a decade, driven by technological acceleration and policy mandates for open science (Mulligan et al., 2024). Early pilot projects already demonstrate predictive analytics that flag high-risk proposals, smart contracts that timestamp reviewer contributions and collaborative platforms where applicants and assessors co-create improvement roadmaps. Equally significant, leading agencies such as the United States National Institutes of Health have issued explicit guidance that generative AI cannot be used to write confidential critiques, underscoring the need for robust governance as digital tools proliferate (NIH, 2025). This paper examines the principal forces shaping the transition from traditional sealed-envelope judgments toward a multilayered, data-enhanced and participatory model that may define grant evaluation beyond 2035.grants.nih.gov

Historical Context and Limitations of Traditional Peer Review

Classical grant review emerged in the post-war period to allocate scarce public research funds through panels of subject experts who deliberated privately and delivered binary decisions that were communicated to applicants in summary sheets. While this collegial practice fostered disciplinary stewardship, it also entrenched closed deliberation norms that obscure reviewer accountability and inhibit meta-analysis of scoring reliability across cycles (Tennant & Ross-Hellauer, 2022). Meta-research reveals that inter-rater agreement for complex interdisciplinary proposals rarely exceeds fifty percent, indicating substantial subjectivity (Bendiscioli, 2021). Furthermore, the administrative burdens of assembling in-person meetings scale poorly; major funders now expend millions annually on travel stipends and staff time, even as virtual convening tools have matured. Without systematic feedback loops or machine-readable audit trails, learned societies struggle to evaluate whether changes to criteria truly reduce bias or improve predictive validity for downstream impact. These challenges set the stage for disruptive innovation in the twenty first century.

Drivers of Change in Grant Evaluation Ecosystem

Several convergent pressures propel reform. First, the data deluge created by preprints, citizen science and corporate partnerships overwhelms human reviewers who must parse intricate statistical code, multimedia datasets and ethical compliance statements. Second, social movements advocating equity and decolonisation highlight structural disadvantages facing women, early-career researchers and the Global South, spurring funders to scrutinize latent bias in existing panels. Third, mandates for open science and reproducibility encourage transparent, auditable decision paths that can be mined for meta-evaluation. Finally, artificial intelligence is rapidly normalizing in research workflows, generating expectations that sophisticated decision support should extend to grant allocation. Collectively, these dynamics compel agencies to explore predictive models, diversified reviewer networks and immutable digital ledgers that ensure traceability and accountability without slowing award cycles.open-access.network

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Proposal Screening

Machine learning offers unprecedented capacity to triage large application pools by clustering thematic content, flagging compliance issues and forecasting likely publication yields. In biomedical funding, deep-learning classifiers trained on citation histories and methodological markers already achieve precision levels that rival junior human reviewers when predicting top-quartile impact scores (ASM, 2024). Generative language models can summarise research narratives and detect copied text, freeing experts to focus on conceptual novelty rather than administrative minutiae. Nonetheless, ethical concerns persist regarding algorithmic bias, explainability and confidentiality. For example, the NIH explicitly prohibits reviewers from entering application text into public generative AI systems, citing concerns about privacy leakage and intellectual property (NIH, 2025). Responsible deployment therefore requires local large-language-model instances, provenance logs and bias audits that are published alongside funding announcements, enabling community oversight while preserving efficiency gains.asm.orggrants.nih.gov

An emerging best-practice architecture envisions a two-tier pipeline where AI handles eligibility and baseline quality checks, then routes shortlisted proposals to diverse human panels for nuanced judgment. Early pilots at private philanthropies report turnaround times reduced by forty percent and reviewer satisfaction gains because mundane reviews are eliminated, yet final funding patterns remain aligned with strategic priorities. Fine-tuning models on grants rather than journal articles is critical, since rhetorical structures and evaluation criteria differ markedly between genres. Ongoing research also investigates reinforcement learning with human feedback, allowing assessors to iteratively shape model attention toward criteria such as ethical impact or community engagement that traditional bibliometrics ignore.linkedin.com

Blockchain for Immutable and Transparent Review Processes

Blockchain technology promises tamper-evident, time-stamped records of every step in the review workflow, enabling funders to generate verifiable audit trails that can be inspected by applicants and oversight bodies. Each assessment could be encoded as a hashed transaction linked to a decentralized identity, ensuring reviewer anonymity while preventing back-dating, score tampering or duplicate submissions. Smart contracts could release micro-payments or reviewer recognition tokens once a critique is delivered, incentivizing timely participation. Pilot studies in editorial peer review have demonstrated feasibility, and grant-specific platforms are now in beta with European funders who aim to publish cryptographically signed decision letters to enhance public trust (Editage, 2024). However, scalability and energy efficiency remain challenges, and legal frameworks must address the cross-jurisdictional nature of distributed ledgers.editage.comdegruyterbrill.com

Open and Collaborative Review Models

Open peer review, in which reviewer identities and comments are disclosed, can mitigate secrecy and allow applicants to respond in real time, creating a dialogic process that improves proposal clarity. Several charitable foundations now pilot online sandpit workshops where reviewers post iterative feedback and applicants revise collaboratively before final scoring. Early evidence suggests higher methodological robustness and novel cross-disciplinary partnerships emerging from these open environments (Ross-Hellauer et al., 2024). Critics caution that named reviews may deter frank critique, but experiments with moderated forums and code-of-conduct agreements show promising civility. Open models also align with funder commitments to transparency, allowing external researchers and journalists to scrutinize rationales for controversial awards, thereby strengthening legitimacy.

Crowdsourced and Distributed Review Panels

Harnessing the wisdom of large expert communities can distribute workload and capture heterodox perspectives. Platforms using reputational scoring allocate micro-reviews to hundreds of volunteers who each assess a narrow criterion, such as statistical power or policy relevance, producing granular evaluation matrices that are aggregated via weighted consensus. Studies reveal that aggregated crowd scores correlate strongly with traditional panel decisions yet exhibit greater predictive validity for long-term citation impact (Bakhshi et al., 2023). Importantly, distributed review can democratize participation by enabling qualified researchers from low-resource settings to contribute asynchronously without travel costs, thus enriching cultural and disciplinary diversity. Nevertheless, robust identity verification and conflict-of-interest tracking are essential to prevent gaming, and remuneration structures must recognise labour to ensure sustained engagement.

Bias Mitigation and Equity Considerations

Algorithmic and human systems alike can perpetuate systemic biases unless proactively addressed. Blind review that conceals applicant demographics has shown mixed results, sometimes reducing gender disparities but not eliminating institutional prestige effects. Bias audits that interrogate outcome distributions across gender, ethnicity and career stage are therefore critical. AI tools can flag patterns suggesting reviewer leniency toward elite universities or penalisation of noncanonical methodologies, triggering secondary scrutiny by diversity officers. Some agencies now commit to quotas for underrepresented groups on panels and require cultural competence training as a funding condition. Equity metrics are increasingly included as key performance indicators in agency strategic plans, with public dashboards tracking progress to foster accountability and continuous improvement.

Integrating Real Time Metrics and Post Award Feedback

Traditional peer review predicts future performance using static narratives and proxies such as prior funding success. Advances in data infrastructure allow incorporation of live indicators, including preprint downloads, code reuse statistics and patient advocacy endorsements, offering richer signals of potential societal benefit. Post award monitoring platforms capture deliverables and real-world impact, feeding evidence back into algorithmic priors and reviewer guidelines. This creates a learning system where evaluation criteria evolve in tandem with observed outcomes, narrowing the evidence gap between proposal promises and actual achievements. Funders that pilot retroactive scoring loops report more accurate forecasting and the ability to adjust award sizes dynamically, thereby maximizing portfolio returns on investment.

Policy and Governance Implications for Funding Agencies

Regulators and funders must craft governance frameworks that balance innovation with ethical safeguards. Clear policies delineating acceptable AI assistance boundaries, data retention periods and grievance redress mechanisms are prerequisites for public acceptance. The NIH’s 2025 guidance illustrates a cautious stance that permits internal AI tools while forbidding external commercial services, reflecting concerns around confidentiality and data sovereignty. International coordination via bodies such as the Global Research Council could harmonize standards to facilitate cross-border collaboration and joint calls. Moreover, legislative amendments may be needed to recognize smart-contract-based disbursements and to clarify intellectual property ownership of AI-generated reviewer content. Continuous stakeholder consultation will be vital to anticipate unintended consequences and ensure proportionate regulation.grants.nih.govnexus.od.nih.gov

Ethical and Trust Issues in Automated Grant Evaluation

Automation introduces dilemmas regarding accountability for errors, algorithmic opacity and potential deskilling of human judgment. Ethicists argue that opaque models could mask discriminatory priors, undermining fairness. Transparent documentation of training data, validation metrics and interpretability methods is therefore non-negotiable. Agencies may establish independent audit boards empowered to suspend tools that fail bias or accuracy thresholds. Hybrid models retaining decisive human oversight may bolster trust during the transition. Crucially, applicants must retain the right to appeal algorithm-influenced decisions, and reviewer instructions should emphasize that AI suggestions are advisory rather than prescriptive, preserving intellectual stewardship and safeguarding against complacent automation bias.

Training the Next Generation of Reviewers

Sustainable reform depends on cultivating digitally fluent reviewers who can interpret AI outputs, validate blockchain logs and practice inclusive evaluation. Graduate curricula increasingly embed peer review ethics, reproducibility and data literacy, while funders sponsor mentorship programs pairing early-career researchers with seasoned reviewers in virtual panels. Simulation-based training environments allow novices to critique anonymized proposals, receive real-time AI feedback and compare their judgments to consensus benchmarks, accelerating skill acquisition. Incentive structures such as certified reviewer credentials and open badges can recognize service contributions, enhancing professional development and rewarding high-quality constructive critique.

Global Harmonization and Interoperability Standards

Given the transnational nature of contemporary science, disparate technical solutions risk fragmenting the ecosystem and increasing compliance burdens. Standardization bodies advocate interoperable application schemas, reviewer metadata formats and blockchain protocols that allow seamless data exchange across agencies. Common ontologies for research topics and impact categories facilitate AI portability and enable meta-analysis across funding portfolios. Collaborative pilot projects between European and African funders illustrate the benefits of shared infrastructure for capacity building and mutual visibility of emerging research strengths, supporting more equitable global investment flows.

Scenario Analysis: Visions for 2035

Extrapolating current trajectories, three plausible futures emerge. In the incremental scenario, AI-augmented yet human-led review becomes the norm, yielding moderate efficiency gains while preserving legacy panel culture. In the transformative scenario, blockchain-based open review networks decentralize evaluation, allowing researchers worldwide to form ad hoc juries that issue smart-contracted micro-awards, dramatically accelerating innovation cycles. The surveillance scenario, by contrast, sees opaque corporate algorithms dominate triage, provoking backlash and regulation that reasserts human authority. The realized future will likely blend elements from each path, contingent on policy choices made over the next five years, underscoring the urgency of proactive, inclusive and evidence-based reform dialogues.editage.comlinkedin.com

Conclusion

The future of peer review for grant evaluation is poised to integrate artificial intelligence, blockchain, open collaboration and robust equity frameworks, thereby transforming a centuries-old gatekeeping mechanism into a dynamic, data-driven and participatory enterprise. Successful modernization will depend on transparent governance, continuous bias auditing, user-centric design and comprehensive reviewer training. While technology can streamline logistics and enhance accountability, safeguarding the core values of scholarly rigor, constructive dialogue and public trust requires sustained human stewardship. The next decade offers a historic opportunity for funding agencies, researchers and policymakers to co-create a resilient evaluation ecosystem that accelerates discovery while ensuring fairness and inclusivity for all contributors to the global scientific commons.

References

ASM. (2024). AI in peer review : A recipe for success.

Bakhshi, H., Etal. (2023). Predictive validity of crowd review in grant funding.

Bendiscioli, S. (2021). Peer review and its future.

Editage. (2024). Blockchain and the future of peer review.

Lee, C., & Moher, D. (2023). Improving research funding evaluation.

Mulligan, A., Jones, R., & Bunting, P. (2024). Editorial perspectives on peer review reform.

NIH. (2025). Peer review policies and artificial intelligence guidance.

Open Access Network. (2025). Funding organisations and open access mandates.

Reddy, S. (2025). Should we let AI peer review grant applications.

Ross-Hellauer, T., Kern, D., & Pontika, N. (2024). Open peer review in practice.

Tennant, J., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2022). A critical overview of peer review.

De Gruyter. (2025). Blockchain technology driving change in scientific research.