Follow Us on Google
By Johnson Ugochukwu Ofoegbu
Research remains one of the most important drivers of national development. Through research, societies generate new knowledge, solve emerging problems, influence public policy, and improve the quality of life of citizens. In recognition of this important role, the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund) established the Institution-Based Research (IBR) intervention to support researchers in Nigerian tertiary institutions.
Over the years, the IBR scheme has provided opportunities for lecturers and researchers to undertake studies that address institutional, national, and global challenges. It has also contributed significantly to strengthening research culture within Nigerian universities, polytechnics, and colleges of education. For many academics, the IBR intervention represents one of the most accessible sources of research funding available within their institutions.
However, the success and credibility of the scheme depend not only on the availability of funds but also on the fairness, transparency, and objectivity of the proposal review process. The confidence researchers place in the system is largely determined by whether they believe proposals are assessed strictly on merit or not.
A proposal review process that is perceived as biased or inconsistent can undermine trust, discourage innovation, and create unnecessary divisions among researchers. Conversely, a process that is transparent and objective encourages healthy competition, motivates scholars to produce quality proposals, and strengthens confidence in institutional research management.
The essence of proposal review is to identify and support the most deserving research projects. This objective can only be achieved when proposals are evaluated using clearly defined criteria such as originality, relevance, methodological soundness, feasibility, expected outcomes, and potential contribution to knowledge and societal development. Factors unrelated to academic merit should have no place in the assessment process.
Unfortunately, concerns about fairness in proposal reviews are not peculiar to any single institution. Across the academic community, questions are sometimes raised regarding the consistency of reviewers’ scores, the transparency of assessment procedures, and the influence of personal relationships, departmental affiliations, academic rank, or other extraneous considerations. Whether these concerns are justified or not, their mere existence points to the need for institutions to strengthen confidence in the review process.
One practical way of achieving this is through the adoption of a double-blind review system. Under this approach, reviewers do not know the identities of the applicants, while applicants equally do not know who reviewed their proposals. Such a system helps to minimise conscious and unconscious biases and ensures that attention is focused on the quality of the proposal rather than the identity of the researcher.
Other News
Institutions should also ensure that reviewers are selected based on competence and expertise in relevant fields. The credibility of any review exercise depends largely on the quality and professionalism of the reviewers involved. Reviewers should be individuals with proven research experience, sound academic judgement, and a commitment to ethical standards.
In addition, there should be clear guidelines for declaring conflicts of interest. A reviewer who has a close personal, professional, supervisory, or collaborative relationship with an applicant should not participate in the assessment of that proposal. Such safeguards are common practice in reputable research funding systems around the world and help to protect the integrity of the process.
Transparency can also be enhanced through the use of standardised scoring templates and clearly communicated evaluation criteria. Applicants should understand how proposals are assessed and what is expected of them. Where possible, constructive feedback should be provided to unsuccessful applicants. Such feedback not only improves future submissions but also reassures researchers that their work received genuine consideration.
Another important consideration is the moderation of scores. Significant disparities between reviewers’ assessments may indicate differences in interpretation or evaluation standards. A moderation mechanism can help address such inconsistencies and ensure that final decisions accurately reflect the merits of the proposals under consideration.
The need for fairness is particularly important because TETFund resources are public funds intended to advance research and national development. Every proposal selected for funding should emerge through a process that can withstand scrutiny and command the confidence of the academic community. The objective should not merely be to distribute funds but to ensure that resources are invested in projects with the greatest potential to generate meaningful impact.
Promoting fairness and objectivity in IBR proposal reviews ultimately benefits everyone. Researchers gain confidence in the system. Institutions strengthen their research culture. TETFund achieves its developmental objectives. Most importantly, society benefits from high-quality research capable of addressing pressing challenges and contributing to sustainable development.
As Nigerian tertiary institutions continue to expand their research activities, it is imperative that proposal review processes reflect the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and professionalism. Fairness should not only be practised; it should also be seen to be practised. Only then can the Institution-Based Research intervention continue to fulfil its noble purpose of supporting excellence in research and fostering national development.
• Ofoegbu, PhD, is a Lecturer at Alvan Ikoku Federal University of Education, Owerri
