Federal civilian · Moraph software

Scientific Grant Peer Review Platform

Run fair, well-documented peer review, from reviewer assignment to funding recommendation

Book a demonstrationRequest a technical briefingFactsheet

Overview

What you are buying

The Scientific Grant Peer Review Platform manages the review of research applications: it helps program staff build panels, flags possible conflicts of interest between reviewers and applicants, and assigns applications to reviewers. Reviewers score and critique in one place, under single-blind or anonymized review as your program chooses, and panels meet with scores and discussion recorded. Every conflict decision, score and recommendation is kept with its reasoning for program officials, oversight staff and appeals.

The problem it solves

Research funding agencies review large numbers of applications each cycle, and the integrity of the result depends on matching each application with qualified reviewers who have no conflict of interest. Conflicts are usually found from reviewers' own disclosures and staff knowledge, which misses co-authorships, shared institutions and past mentoring relationships. Assignments, scores and critiques move through spreadsheets and email, anonymization is applied by hand, and when an applicant appeals or an auditor asks how a decision was made, the record is incomplete.

  • Possible conflicts between reviewers and applicants are found by hand and inconsistently
  • Panel building and assignment take staff time that grows with every application
  • Anonymized review depends on manual redaction of applicant details
  • Scores, critiques and conflict decisions are hard to reconstruct for appeals and audits

Who uses it

  • Federal research funding agencies and their review offices
  • Scientific review officers and program officers who run panels
  • External scientific reviewers and panel chairs
  • Grants management and program leadership who make funding decisions
  • Ethics officials, inspectors general and auditors who review the process

Requirements it supports

Scientific peer review of research grant applications (42 CFR Part 52h)Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR Part 200)Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 10)Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR Part 2635)Acts affecting a personal financial interest (18 U.S.C. 208)Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a)

The product supports these requirements; meeting them remains your organization’s responsibility.

See how it works

A short walkthrough

Illustrative screens with fictional sample data. They show the workflow, not any client’s data or configuration, and the layout of the product itself differs. A live demonstration uses the product with sample data.

  1. Step 1

    Conflict flags for a panel

    Before assignment, the review officer sees every possible conflict between candidate reviewers and applications, with the evidence for each.

    ReviewerApplicationPossible conflictEvidenceDecision
    Reviewer 1043APP-58812Same institutionAffiliation record (sample)Pending
    Reviewer 1043APP-58830Co-authorshipShared paper, recent (sample)Pending
    Reviewer 2207APP-58812Former traineeDisclosure by reviewerConfirmed
    Reviewer 3150APP-58851Same city, different institutionAffiliation record (sample)Cleared
    Before assignment, the review officer sees every possible conflict between candidate reviewers and applications, with the evidence for each.

  2. Step 2

    Deciding a conflict

    Each flag shows its evidence; the review officer confirms or clears it with a reason, and confirmed conflicts block the assignment.

    Reviewer 1043 (fictional) · Application APP-58830

    Flag type
    Co-authorship
    Source
    Publication record (sample)
    Reviewer disclosure
    Not disclosed
    Program rule
    Co-authorship within the look-back period set by your agency

    Evidence

    • One shared article listing the reviewer and the principal investigator (fictional)
    • !Reviewer has not responded to the disclosure check
    Each flag shows its evidence; the review officer confirms or clears it with a reason, and confirmed conflicts block the assignment.

  3. Step 3

    Assignments

    Applications are assigned with reviewer roles and load limits; the platform will not assign where a conflict is unresolved.

    ApplicationTopicPrimarySecondaryDiscussantStatus
    APP-58812Soil microbiome (sample)Reviewer 3150Reviewer 4488Reviewer 5021Assigned
    APP-58830Coastal sediment (sample)Reviewer 2207Blocked: conflict pendingReviewer 5021Incomplete
    APP-58851Plant root signaling (sample)Reviewer 4488Reviewer 3150Reviewer 1043Assigned
    Applications are assigned with reviewer roles and load limits; the platform will not assign where a conflict is unresolved.

  4. Step 4

    A reviewer's critique

    Reviewers write against your criteria and score on your scale, seeing only their assigned applications.

    Application APP-58851 · Anonymized review

    Reviewer role
    Primary
    Applicant identity
    Withheld
    Criterion: significance
    Written
    Criterion: approach
    Written
    Criterion: feasibility
    Not started
    Preliminary score
    Not entered

    Before you submit

    • Complete every criterion
    • Enter a preliminary score
    • Declare a conflict if you recognize the applicant
    Reviewers write against your criteria and score on your scale, seeing only their assigned applications.

  5. Step 5

    The panel meeting

    During the meeting, conflicted members are excluded from each discussion, and final scores are entered by eligible members only.

    OrderApplicationPreliminary averageExcluded membersFinal averageStatus
    1APP-588512.0None1.8Scored
    2APP-588122.6Reviewer 1043, Reviewer 22072.4Scored
    3APP-588303.1Reviewer 1043, Reviewer 2207In discussion
    4APP-588774.2NoneNot discussed
    During the meeting, conflicted members are excluded from each discussion, and final scores are entered by eligible members only.

  6. Step 6

    The review record

    Every step for an application is recorded, so an appeal or audit can see exactly how it was reviewed.

    Review record · Application APP-58830

    1. Application received and grouped to Panel P-214Platform
    2. Co-authorship flag with Reviewer 1043 confirmed, with reasonScientific review officer
    3. Assigned to Reviewers 2207, 4488 and 5021Scientific review officer
    4. Critiques and preliminary scores submittedReviewers
    5. Discussed with conflicted members excluded; final scores enteredPanel
    6. Summary statement edited and releasedScientific review officer
    Every step for an application is recorded, so an appeal or audit can see exactly how it was reviewed.

Workflows

The principal workflows

  1. Receive and prepare

    Applications arrive from your submission system and are checked, grouped by topic and prepared for the review mode the program has chosen.

    • Applications received with applicant, institution, key personnel and documents
    • Administrative completeness checks recorded
    • Applications grouped by topic using their abstracts and your categories
    • For anonymized review, applicant-identifying details withheld from reviewer copies and flagged for staff checking
    • Applications released to panel building

  2. Build panels and check conflicts

    Program staff find qualified reviewers, and the platform flags possible conflicts from disclosures, publication and affiliation data. Staff decide on each flag and record the reason.

    • Candidate reviewers suggested by expertise match to the panel's applications
    • Possible conflicts flagged: shared institution, recent co-authorship, mentoring, collaboration or financial interest disclosed
    • Reviewers submit conflict and confidentiality certifications
    • Review officer confirms or clears each flag with a recorded reason
    • Assignments made only where no unresolved conflict remains

  3. Review and score

    Reviewers read assigned applications, write critiques against your criteria and enter preliminary scores before the meeting.

    • Reviewer sees only their assigned applications
    • Critique written against each review criterion
    • Preliminary scores entered on your scoring scale
    • Reviewer can declare a newly noticed conflict at any point, which removes the assignment
    • Review officer monitors completion and follows up

  4. Meet and recommend

    Panels discuss applications with conflicted members excluded, enter final scores, and the platform assembles summary statements and the record for funding decisions.

    • Discussion order set from preliminary scores and program rules
    • Conflicted reviewers excluded from the discussion and scoring of those applications
    • Final scores entered by eligible panel members
    • Summary statements drafted from critiques and discussion notes for the review officer to edit
    • Results released to program staff for funding recommendations and approval

Roles and permissions

Who does what in the product

Each role below is a starting point. During implementation we set them up to match your teams, and every action anyone takes is recorded in the audit trail.

Scientific review officer

Scientific review officer, review administrator, panel manager

Runs the review of a set of applications fairly and on schedule, and makes and documents conflict decisions.

Sees

  • Applications for their panels, including identifying details
  • Candidate reviewers, their profiles and possible conflicts
  • Critiques, scores and completion status
  • The review record for their panels

Does

  • Builds panels and invites reviewers
  • Confirms or clears each conflict flag with a reason
  • Assigns applications and sets reviewer roles
  • Checks anonymized reviewer copies before release
  • Runs the panel meeting and records discussion notes
  • Edits and releases summary statements

Cannot

  • Score applications
  • Assign an application where an unresolved conflict exists
  • Make funding recommendations or decisions
Approvals
Conflict decisions they make can be reviewed by your ethics official where your procedures require it; releasing results follows your program's approval steps.
Notified about
Conflict flags to resolve, reviewers declining or declaring new conflicts, and critiques overdue.

Reviewer

External scientific reviewer, ad hoc reviewer, standing panel member

Gives an independent, expert assessment of the applications assigned to them.

Sees

  • Only the applications assigned to them, in the review mode the program uses
  • The review criteria, scoring scale and critique template
  • Other reviewers' critiques for their applications, when the program releases them before the meeting

Does

  • Completes conflict-of-interest and confidentiality certifications
  • Declares any conflict they notice, at any point
  • Writes critiques against each criterion
  • Enters preliminary and final scores
  • Takes part in panel discussion

Cannot

  • See applications not assigned to them or any for which they are conflicted
  • See applicant identities in anonymized review
  • See funding recommendations or decisions
Approvals
Their assignment depends on the review officer clearing any conflict flags; their critiques may be edited into summary statements by the review officer.
Notified about
Invitations, assignments, critique deadlines set by the program, and meeting details.

Panel chair

Panel chair, study section chair

Leads the scientific discussion so each application gets a fair hearing.

Sees

  • The panel's applications, except those where they are conflicted
  • Preliminary scores and discussion order
  • Discussion notes as they are recorded

Does

  • Leads discussion of each application in order
  • Summarizes the panel's view for the record
  • Reviews and scores their own assigned applications

Cannot

  • Take part in discussion of applications where they are conflicted
  • Change conflict decisions or assignments
  • Edit other reviewers' critiques or scores
Approvals
Their role is set by the review officer; they approve nothing in the system.
Notified about
Meeting details, discussion order and any change in their conflict status.

Program officer

Program officer, program director, program manager

Uses review results to prepare funding recommendations for their portfolio.

Sees

  • Final scores, summary statements and panel results for their portfolio
  • Program priorities and available funds as your agency records them
  • The status of applications through review

Does

  • Reviews results and summary statements
  • Prepares funding recommendations with a written rationale
  • Records program considerations beyond the review scores
  • Responds to applicant questions after results are released

Cannot

  • Change scores, critiques or conflict decisions
  • See reviewer identities linked to individual critiques unless your agency allows it
  • Approve their own recommendations
Approvals
Funding recommendations are approved by an approving official.
Notified about
Results released for their portfolio and recommendations returned with comments.

Approving official

Division director, deputy director, grants management officer

Approves funding recommendations within the authority delegated to them.

Sees

  • Recommendations awaiting approval, with scores, summary statements and rationale
  • Program-level results across panels
  • The review record

Does

  • Approves or returns funding recommendations
  • Reviews exceptions where a recommendation departs from score order
  • Approves release of results to applicants

Cannot

  • Change scores or critiques
  • Approve a recommendation they prepared
  • Approve beyond their delegated authority
Approvals
Their decisions follow your agency's delegations and any advisory council review your program requires.
Notified about
Recommendations waiting for approval and exceptions flagged for attention.

Auditor (read-only)

Inspector general staff, ethics official, internal auditor

Reviews how conflicts were handled and how decisions were reached, without changing anything.

Sees

  • Conflict flags, decisions and reasons
  • Assignments, scores and summary statements within scope
  • Reviewer certifications
  • The audit trail

Does

  • Searches and reads records in scope
  • Reruns reports as of a past date
  • Exports records, with each export logged

Cannot

  • Change, approve or delete anything
  • See records outside the scope granted
  • Keep access after it expires
Approvals
Their access is approved by an administrator or program leadership, with a scope and an end date.
Notified about
Nothing by default.

Administrator

Application administrator, review systems administrator

Manages users, review templates, scoring scales and configuration without access to applications or scores.

Sees

  • Users, roles and panel set-up
  • Review criteria, templates and scoring scales
  • The record of permission changes

Does

  • Adds users or maps them from single sign-on
  • Maintains review criteria, templates and scales
  • Configures review modes and conflict rules as your agency directs
  • Runs access review reports

Cannot

  • Read applications, critiques or scores
  • Change conflict decisions
  • Grant themselves a review role
Approvals
Changes to conflict rules and review modes are approved by program leadership.
Notified about
Access reviews due and integration failures.

Permissions at a glance

ActionSROReviewerChairProgram off.ApproverAuditorAdmin
Build panels and invite reviewersFullNo accessNo accessNo accessNo accessNo accessNo access
Confirm or clear conflict flagsFullNo accessNo accessNo accessNo accessView onlyNo access
Declare a conflictNo accessOwn work onlyOwn work onlyNo accessNo accessNo accessNo access
Assign applicationsFullNo accessNo accessNo accessNo accessNo accessNo access
Read applicationsFullOwn work onlyOwn work onlyView onlyView onlyView onlyNo access
Write critiques and scoreNo accessOwn work onlyOwn work onlyNo accessNo accessNo accessNo access
Edit and release summary statementsFullNo accessNo accessView onlyView onlyView onlyNo access
Prepare funding recommendationsNo accessNo accessNo accessOwn work onlyFullNo accessNo access
Approve funding recommendationsNo accessNo accessNo accessNo accessApprovesNo accessNo access
View audit trailView onlyNo accessNo accessNo accessView onlyView onlyView only
Configure criteria, scales and conflict rulesNo accessNo accessNo accessNo accessApprovesNo accessFull
Manage users and rolesNo accessNo accessNo accessNo accessApprovesNo accessFull
  • Full
  • Own work only
  • Approves
  • View only
  • No access

How access is controlled

  • Conflicts block access: a reviewer or chair with an unresolved or confirmed conflict cannot see, discuss or score that application, and the block is applied by the system, not by memory.
  • Review and funding are kept apart: reviewers never see funding decisions, program officers cannot change scores, and nobody approves a recommendation they prepared.
  • Roles are limited by panel and portfolio, so staff see only the reviews they are responsible for. Every permission change is recorded in the audit trail.
  • Federal staff sign in through your identity provider; external reviewers sign in through the method your agency approves. Auditors receive scoped, time-limited read-only access.

Features

What it does

Conflict-of-interest flags

Possible conflicts between reviewers and applicants flagged from institutional affiliations, co-authorship, mentoring and collaboration records, and disclosures, each with the evidence behind it.

Recorded conflict decisions

Every flag is confirmed or cleared by a named review officer with a reason, and the decision is kept with the review record.

Reviewer expertise matching

Candidate reviewers suggested by comparing their expertise and publications with each application's topic, for staff to accept or reject.

Single-blind or anonymized review

Choose the review mode per program; for anonymized review, applicant-identifying details are withheld from reviewer copies and checked by staff.

Assignment management

Assign applications to reviewers with load limits and primary, secondary and discussant roles, blocked where an unresolved conflict exists.

Structured critiques and scoring

Critique templates follow your review criteria, and scores use your scale, with completeness checks before submission.

Panel meeting support

Discussion order, conflicted-member exclusion, final scoring and discussion notes for in-person, virtual or hybrid meetings.

Summary statement drafting

Summary statements assembled from critiques, scores and discussion notes for the review officer to edit and release.

Reviewer certifications

Conflict-of-interest and confidentiality certifications collected from every reviewer before they see an application.

Score analysis

Score distributions by reviewer and panel, so staff can see where a reviewer scores far from colleagues and follow up.

Reviewer pool

Reviewer profiles with expertise, past service, availability and disclosures, maintained across review cycles.

Review record and audit trail

Every assignment, conflict decision, score, edit and release recorded with the person and time, for appeals and oversight.

Integrations

How it connects to your systems

Connects toHowWhat flows
Application submissionApplications and their documents received from the submission system your agency uses.In: applications, applicants, key personnel, institutions and documents.
Grants managementReview results and approved recommendations sent to your grants management system for award processing.Out: scores, summary statements and recommendation status.
Publication and affiliation dataPublication and affiliation records from sources your agency licenses or approves, used to suggest reviewers and flag possible conflicts.In: authorship, co-authorship and institutional affiliation records.
Reviewer disclosuresFinancial interest and relationship disclosures collected in the platform or received from your existing disclosure process.In: disclosures and certifications by reviewer.
Single sign-onFederal staff sign in through your agency identity provider (SAML or OpenID Connect); external reviewers through the identity method your agency approves.In: user identity and group membership.
Meeting toolsMeeting links and attendance from the video conferencing service your agency uses, recorded against panel sessions.In: attendance. Out: meeting schedule and participant list.
Work APIReview status, scores and results available to your data warehouse and reporting tools through the Moraph Work API.Out: applications, assignments, conflict decisions, scores and status.

Each integration is confirmed in discovery and specified in the design. See how an engagement progresses.

Security and privacy

How your data is protected

Records kept in the United States

Applications, reviews and reviewer data are hosted in the United States region.

Cleared support lane

Support tickets from federal clients are handled only by US citizens with active security clearances.

Access by assignment

Reviewers see only their assigned applications, and conflicts block access automatically.

Encryption under controlled keys

Client data is encrypted with keys Moraph staff cannot access without explicit, time-bound authorization.

Complete audit trail

Every view, assignment, conflict decision, score, edit and release is recorded with the person and time, and cannot be edited.

AI proposes, people decide

Reviewer suggestions, conflict flags and draft summary statements are proposals; review officers decide on each, and scores come only from reviewers.

Company-wide controls, independent audits (SOC 2 Type II and ISO/IEC 27001) and data residency are described in our Trust Center, where you can request the evidence pack.

Reporting

What you can report on

11 standard reports, grouped by who uses them. Each shows who it is for, how it can be broken down, how it is delivered and what it is used for. The data behind them is also available to your own reporting tools.

Review operations

Review progress

For scientific review officers and review office managers

For each panel, applications assigned, critiques submitted and outstanding, and reviewers who have not started.

Break down by
Panel, Reviewer, Status, Due date
Delivered as
Live dashboard; scheduled email
Used for
Following up with reviewers so meetings start with complete critiques.

Reviewer load and recruitment

For scientific review officers

Assignments per reviewer, invitations accepted and declined, and panels still short of expertise.

Break down by
Panel, Expertise area, Invitation status
Delivered as
Live dashboard; CSV export
Used for
Balancing load and filling gaps before review begins.

Meeting results

For review officers and program officers

Final scores, discussion status and summary statement status for each application reviewed by a panel.

Break down by
Panel, Meeting, Score band, Statement status
Delivered as
Live view; PDF and CSV export
Used for
Handing results to program staff once the meeting closes.

Integrity

Conflict flags and decisions

For review officers, ethics officials, auditors

Every conflict flag raised, its type and evidence, and whether it was confirmed or cleared, by whom and why.

Break down by
Conflict type, Decision, Panel, Decided by
Delivered as
Live view; PDF and CSV export
Used for
Showing that conflicts were identified and handled consistently.

Certifications

For review officers and ethics officials

Conflict-of-interest and confidentiality certifications received for each reviewer and panel, and any missing.

Break down by
Panel, Certification type, Status
Delivered as
Live dashboard; CSV export
Used for
Confirming no reviewer saw an application before certifying.

Score patterns

For review officers and program leadership

Score distributions by reviewer and panel, and reviewers whose scores differ widely from their colleagues on the same applications.

Break down by
Reviewer, Panel, Criterion, Cycle
Delivered as
Live dashboard; CSV export
Used for
Spotting calibration issues and supporting reviewer guidance.

Program and leadership

Portfolio results

For program officers and approving officials

Scored applications in a portfolio with their summary statements, recommendation status and approvals.

Break down by
Portfolio, Score band, Recommendation status, Cycle
Delivered as
Live view; PDF and CSV export
Used for
Preparing and approving funding recommendations.

Recommendations outside score order

For approving officials and program leadership

Recommendations that depart from score order, with the program officer's recorded rationale.

Break down by
Portfolio, Reason, Approver
Delivered as
Live view; PDF export
Used for
Reviewing and documenting program-based exceptions.

Cycle summary

For program leadership and oversight bodies

Applications received, reviewed, discussed and recommended in a cycle, panels held and reviewers who served.

Break down by
Cycle, Program, Panel type
Delivered as
PDF; scheduled email
Used for
Reporting on the review program to leadership and advisory bodies.

Audit

Application review record

For review officers answering appeals, auditors

For one application, its assignments, conflict decisions, critiques, scores, discussion notes and summary statement history.

Break down by
Application, Event type, User, Date
Delivered as
On request in the product; PDF export
Used for
Answering an appeal or inquiry with the complete record.

Audit trail extract

For inspectors general and auditors

Who viewed, changed, decided or released what, for a selected panel, application, user or period.

Break down by
Record, User, Action, Date range
Delivered as
On request in the product; CSV and PDF export
Used for
Answering audit requests without assembling evidence by hand.

Exports, access and evidence

  • Every report can be exported to CSV, and summary and evidence reports to PDF. Reports can be scheduled to arrive by email for the people entitled to see them.
  • Filters can be saved, so a review officer or program officer keeps their own views. Reports in a different shape can be built in your own tools from the data available through the API.
  • Review status, scores and results are available through the Moraph Work API for your data warehouse or business intelligence tools.
  • Reports respect each viewer's role: reviewers see only their own work, review officers see their panels, and reviewer identities are shown alongside critiques only to roles your agency allows.
  • Integrity and audit reports can be run as of a past date and give the same result each time. Running and exporting a report is recorded in the audit trail.

Deployment

Where and how it runs

Moraph cloud, United States

Hosted and operated by Moraph in the United States region, with records kept in the US.

Dedicated environment

A single-tenant environment for agencies that require isolation, scoped in the proposal.

With a managed service

Optionally run alongside a Moraph managed service for administration, reviewer support during review cycles and integration operations.

Security controls, independent audits and data residency are set out in our Trust Center. Engagement models and what drives a quotation are on Working with Moraph.

Implementation

What a rollout involves

The general phases are on Working with Moraph. For this product, they involve the following.

Process review

We map your review process with your review office: review modes, criteria, scoring scales, panel types, conflict rules and approval steps.

Conflict rules and data sources

The relationships that count as possible conflicts, and how far back they look, are set with your ethics officials, and approved publication and affiliation sources are connected.

Integration with submission and grants systems

Application intake and results output are connected to your submission and grants management systems and tested with sample records.

Reviewer pool migration

Existing reviewer profiles, expertise and service history are migrated, and reviewers are invited to confirm their profiles and disclosures.

Pilot cycle

One or more panels run on the platform in a cycle you choose, with conflict flags compared with your existing process and adjustments made before wider use.

Training and go-live

Review officers, program staff and approving officials are trained on their workflows, and reviewers receive guidance written for them.

Limitations

What it does not do

Worth knowing before you evaluate it.

  • Conflict flags are possible conflicts, found from the data available. They can miss relationships that are not in that data, and they can flag relationships that are not conflicts. Review officers decide on every flag, and reviewers remain responsible for their own disclosures.
  • It does not score applications or make funding decisions. Scores come from reviewers, and funding decisions are made by your authorized officials.
  • Anonymized review removes identifying details the platform can detect; applications may still contain clues to the applicant's identity, so staff check reviewer copies before release.
  • It is not an application submission portal or a grants management system. It works between the systems you already use for those.
  • Draft summary statements are proposals assembled from critiques and notes, and must be edited and released by the review officer.
  • Publication and affiliation data comes from sources your agency licenses or approves; their coverage limits what can be flagged.
  • Moraph holds no FedRAMP authorization for this product. We map controls and provide documentation to support your agency's own authorization decision.
  • Advisory council or board review, where your program requires it, takes place under your agency's procedures; the platform can provide the records for it.

Evaluation checklist

What to test in a demonstration or pilot

Questions worth putting to us, and to any other vendor you are considering.

  1. Rerun the conflict check for a past panel and compare the flags with the conflicts your staff identified
  2. Configure one program's criteria and scoring scale and have a reviewer complete a critique
  3. Check anonymized reviewer copies of sample applications for remaining identifying details
  4. Run a mock panel meeting and confirm conflicted members are excluded from discussion and scoring
  5. Reconstruct the full record for one application as you would for an appeal
  6. Confirm role separation between reviewers, review officers, program officers and approving officials

Questions

Frequently asked questions

Does the platform decide who has a conflict?

No. It flags possible conflicts from disclosures and the data sources you approve, and shows the evidence. A review officer confirms or clears every flag with a reason, and reviewers remain responsible for their own disclosures.

Can we run double-blind review?

Yes, as anonymized review. Applicant-identifying details the platform can detect are withheld from reviewer copies, and staff check the copies before release because applications can still contain clues to identity.

Can it match our scoring scale and criteria?

Yes. Criteria, critique templates and scoring scales are configured for each program during implementation.

Do external reviewers need agency accounts?

External reviewers sign in through the identity method your agency approves for them, and see only their assigned applications.

Is it FedRAMP authorized?

No. Moraph holds no FedRAMP authorization for this product. We map controls and provide documentation to support your agency's own authorization decision.

How do we evaluate it before buying?

A demonstration uses fictional applications and reviewers. For a deeper evaluation, a pilot can rerun the conflict check for a past panel and compare its flags with the conflicts your staff found.

Next steps

Evaluate Scientific Grant Peer Review Platform

Book a demonstration

See the product working with sample data, focused on your workflows.

Request a demonstration

Request a technical briefing

Architecture, integrations, security and hosting, with our engineers and your technical team.

Request a briefing

Factsheet

This page on two sides, to share with colleagues or add to your evaluation file.

Open the factsheet

Buying through a formal procurement? See How to buy for purchasing routes, accessibility conformance reports and company information. Documentation: Scientific Grant Peer Review Platform guides on docs.moraph.com (getting started and security guides are public; setup, administration and integration guides are for client accounts). Support: Scientific Grant Peer Review Platform support guide.

Related products