Scientific Grant Peer Review Platform

Principal workflows

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

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

Reporting

• Review progress and outstanding critiques by panel
• Conflict flags raised, confirmed and cleared, with reasons
• Reviewer certifications received and missing
• Score patterns by reviewer and panel
• Portfolio results and recommendations outside score order
• Complete review records for appeals and audit

Features

• 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

• Application submission: Applications and their documents received from the submission system your agency uses.
• Grants management: Review results and approved recommendations sent to your grants management system for award processing.
• Publication and affiliation data: Publication and affiliation records from sources your agency licenses or approves, used to suggest reviewers and flag possible conflicts.
• Reviewer disclosures: Financial interest and relationship disclosures collected in the platform or received from your existing disclosure process.
• Single sign-on: Federal staff sign in through your agency identity provider (SAML or OpenID Connect); external reviewers through the identity method your agency approves.
• Meeting tools: Meeting links and attendance from the video conferencing service your agency uses, recorded against panel sessions.
• Work API: Review status, scores and results available to your data warehouse and reporting tools through the Moraph Work API.

Deployment

• 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 and privacy

• 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.

Limitations

• 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.

Next steps

Book a demonstration or a technical briefing at www.moraph.com/solutions/scientific-grant-peer-review-platform. Purchasing routes and company information: www.moraph.com/how-to-buy.