Skip to content

CAKE Review Committee Terms of Reference

This document outlines the terms of reference for the appointment and organisation of a Review Committee (RC) serving the Computational Abilities Knowledge Exchange (CAKE) project.

Purpose

To evaluate Expression of Interest (EoI) application forms submitted by those wishing to apply to the CAKE project's flexible funds. The CAKE RC is responsible for providing fair, respectful, and constructive reviews to ensure funding is allocated appropriately and transparently.

These decisions should support the overarching goals of the CAKE project: to facilitate knowledge exchange (KE) and sustainable collaboration across the full range of UK Digital Research Infrastructure (DRI) communities. The RC ensures all funding recommendations align with the project’s values and strategic objectives, promote inclusivity, innovation, and long-term impact within the UK DRI landscape.

Scope

The CAKE RC reviews EoI application forms for all flexible funding calls including, but not limited to:

  • Knowledge Exchange (KE) Fellowships: Open twice a year, successful KE champions will support and enable knowledge exchange for a part of the DRI community.
  • Placements and Visits: Always open, reviewed on a rolling basis. These short-term placements or visits will enable collaboration, skill-sharing, and knowledge exchange across organisations or sectors.
  • Proposals for Retreat Topics: Open twice a year, proposals will suggest focus areas and themes for upcoming retreats.
  • Retreat attendance: Open in alignment with retreats, supporting individuals who are seeking to attend a thematic, peer-led retreat on a specific KE topic.

Roles and Responsibilities

The CAKE RC consists of Review Leads (RLs) and Reviewers. The RLs are appointed to oversee and manage a specific funding call, whereas the Reviewers are members of a Pool of Reviewers who are invited to accept reviews for all CAKE flexible funding calls.

Review Lead

Responsibilities:

  • Oversee and manage the entire review process for a specific flexible funding call.
  • Timely preparation for the review process (see below), including setting and communicating clear deadlines, information and expectations to reviewers.
  • Ensure each EoI application receives a minimum of four reviews.
  • Coordinate and chair virtual RC meetings.
  • Make final funding decisions based on the review outcomes, and communicate those, including feedback, to the applicants.
  • Be responsible for removing Reviewers who do not comply with the CAKE Code of Conduct.

Appointment:

  • RLs will be appointed by the CAKE management team.

Term length:

  • RLs will manage and oversee the entire review process for a specific funding call.
  • RLs may manage and oversee multiple review processes for different funding calls.

Stepping down before end of term:

  • RLs who wish to step down during a review process must inform the CAKE management team that they are no longer able to fulfil the role as soon as possible.
  • The CAKE management team will appoint a replacement RL.

Removal:

A RL may be removed if they are not fulfilling their role or breach the CAKE Code of Conduct.

  • The process may be initiated through a formal complaint to the CAKE management team, or directly by the CAKE management team.
  • Members of the CAKE management teams who are not Reviewers or RLs involved in the funding call associated with the complaint will investigate the complaint. This may include action up to and including:
    • Giving the RL an opportunity to respond, including explaining any barriers to participation or mitigating circumstances.
    • Removal of the RL.

Pool of Reviewers

The reviewer pool comprises experts from across the UK Digital Research Infrastructure (DRI) communities. Reviewers are invited to accept reviews for individual funding calls.

Responsibilities:

  • Providing fair and well-reasoned assessments of EoI applications based on the impartial criteria established for each flexible funding call.
  • Accepting or declining reviewing assignments in a timely manner.
  • If a reviewing assignment has been accepted, abiding by all pre-agreed deadlines.
  • Submitting written assessments and feedback for the applicants using the designated reviewing form to support selection decisions and/or applicant improvement (see below).
  • Participating in virtual RC decision-making meetings to assist the RL in making final funding decisions.
  • Comply with the CAKE Code of Conduct.

Appointment:

  • Individuals interested in joining the CAKE RC as a Reviewer must complete an application form.
  • We are committed to building a Reviewer pool that reflects the diversity of the CAKE and wider UK DRI community. We actively welcome applications from all members of the community, regardless of background, discipline, or career stage. The reviewer application form is always open to new applications and regularly promoted via the CAKE website, social media channels, and other relevant platforms to encourage broad participation.
  • Applications are reviewed by the CAKE management team on a rolling basis, and suitable candidates will be invited to join the reviewer pool.
  • Applications to join the CAKE RC will be accepted based on: relevant experience, interest in the DRI and KE landscape, and our goal to build a diverse and balanced reviewer pool across career stages and disciplines.

Term length:

  • There is no fixed term length for Reviewers within the Pool of Reviewers.
  • If a review assignment has been accepted, the Reviewer is expected to complete the entire review process for the corresponding funding call.

Stepping down before end of term:

  • Reviewers may step down at any time by notifying the CAKE Management Team.
  • Reviewers who have accepted a review assignment must also notify the corresponding RL as soon as possible.

Removal:

A Reviewer may be removed if they are not fulfilling their role or breach the CAKE Code of Conduct.

  • The process may be initiated through a formal complaint to the RL or the CAKE management team, or directly by the RL or the CAKE management team.
  • Members of the CAKE management teams who are not Reviewers or RLs involved in the funding call associated with the complaint will investigate the complaint. This may include action up to and including:
    • Giving the Reviewer an opportunity to respond, including explaining any barriers to participation or mitigating circumstances.
    • Removal of the Reviewer.

Preparing for a Review Process

The RL is responsible for all preparation in advance of a review process. This includes preparing the reviewing criteria, a timeline for the full review process and reviewer briefing materials to outline the scope and goals of the funding call.

Timeline

We aim for each review process to be completed within six weeks of the funding call's EoI application deadline. The RL is responsible for clearly communicating all deadlines with reviewers.

A typical review process follows this timeline:

  • Week 1: EoI deadline closes; reviewer assignments are made, with one week to accept or decline. Once accepted, reviewers receive the full application and review form.
  • Week 2 & 3: Reviewers complete and submit their reviews.
  • Week 4: RC meeting is held if needed to discuss any applications without a clear recommendation.
  • Week 5: RL notifies applicants of outcomes and provides reviewer feedback.

The timeline will be sent to reviewers before they accept their assignment. By accepting an assignment, reviewers agree to abide by the deadlines and commitments outlined in the timeline.

Review criteria

Reviewers will score an application out of 100, split across different weighted sections, and then make a final recommendation (yes, no and unsure) to fund the application. The specific scoring areas and their weighting will depend on the call. This is the current suggested criteria for different types of applications:

  • KE Fellows: Strength of the applicant’s plan in relation to KE (40%), Appropriateness of individual based on the call topic (20%), Potential for individual to both champion KE and take a role in leading the network (20%), Likelihood of attracting new communities to the network (20%).
  • Retreat Topics: Suitability of topic in relation to DRI needs (30%), Likelihood in attracting a wide-ranging audience and new communities (30%), Importance of planned outcomes (20%), Retreat will provide an opportunity that is not available elsewhere (20%).
  • Attending an Advertised Retreat: Benefit to the retreat in having this participant involved (30%), Benefit to individual in attending (20%), Potential to link with new communities (20%), Likelihood in delivering long term impact from the retreat (20%), Consideration of environmental impact (10%).
  • Funding a Placement or Visit: Importance of the benefits from this visit and UKRI-wide relevance of specific outputs (40%), Potential to drive long term collaboration (20%), Eminence of the partners in HPC and/or the specific field being investigated (10%), Appropriateness of the time plan and value for money (10%), Consideration of environmental impact (10%), Link to DRI projects and activities (10%).

These have been selected to ensure applications to a specific call are consistently evaluated by reviewers and the outcome aligns with the overarching goals of the CAKE project and funding call.

We expect these criteria to evolve over time. Changes to the criteria must be submitted for approval by the CAKE management team.

Assigning reviewers

Once the EoI deadline closes, the RL is responsible for assigning reviewers to each application. Assignments can be based on reviewer preference, subject expertise, workload balance and alignment with the application content.

Upon assignment request, reviewers receive:
* High-level information about the EoI application, including the applicant’s name and affiliation/institution. * Briefing materials outlining the scope, review criteria, and goals of the funding call. * A clear timeline for the review process.

Reviewers must confirm participation within one week and are expected to meet all deadlines once accepted.

We follow the UKRI definition of a conflict of interest, which states: A conflict of interest is a situation in which an individual’s ability to exercise judgment or act in one role is, could be, or is seen to be impaired or otherwise influenced by their involvement in another role or relationship.

If a reviewer declines or has a conflict, and the four-reviewer minimum is not met, another reviewer will be contacted. If no replacement is available, a member of the CAKE management team (not otherwise involved in the funding call) will step in to complete the review.

Reviewing an application

If a reviewer accepts an assignment, they will receive the full application and the review form. Reviewers are expected to score the EoI application out of 100 and make a final funding recommendation: Yes, No, or Unsure.

Each reviewer must also provide a brief written assessment and constructive feedback to support their recommendation and assist applicant development. Reviewers are encouraged to consider the career stage of the applicant when evaluating proposals.

All reviewers are expected to adhere to the CAKE Code of Conduct and follow the reviewer best practice guidance at all times. In summary, all reviewers are expected to adhere to the following principles:

  • Confidentiality
    • All materials and deliberations must be kept strictly confidential. No content may be shared or discussed outside the formal review process.
  • Impartiality and Fairness
    • Reviews must be objective and based solely on the material submitted and the evaluation criteria. Reviewers must avoid bias or influence.
  • Transparency and Accountability
    • Comments and scoring should be clear, consistent, and justifiable, and may be shared (in whole or in part) with applicants.
  • Respect and Professionalism
    • Feedback must be constructive and respectful, even when critical. Offensive, dismissive, or discriminatory remarks are unacceptable.

Reviewers who do not comply may be removed.

Final funding decisions

Where possible, decisions to accept or reject an application will be based on the four independent reviews submitted by the RC. If the reviews do not indicate a clear decision, the EoI application will be discussed at the virtual RC meeting.

This meeting is organised by the RL, with the date set prior to the review process beginning. Meetings are held virtually and will be confidential. In order to make a decision, at least two reviewers of each application discussed in the meeting must be present. If a decision still cannot be reached, the RL will make the final funding decision, informed by the RC’s recommendations and written assessments.

Contact:

For questions or to update your availability, please contact: cake-management@mlist.is.ed.ac.uk.

Review

The terms of reference will be reviewed annually to ensure relevance and effectiveness. The CAKE managment team is responsible for initiating the review and gathering Member input.

Document Version

Version Date
1 13/08/25