{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,12]],"date-time":"2026-08-12T18:28:31Z","timestamp":1786559311217,"version":"build-2736575974"},"reference-count":27,"publisher":"Public Library of Science (PLoS)","issue":"8","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,12]],"date-time":"2026-08-12T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1786492800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["www.plosone.org"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["PLoS One"],"abstract":"<jats:sec id=\"sec001\">\n                    <jats:title>Background<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Research funding is a crucial driver of healthcare innovation and improved patient outcomes. However, the peer-review process utilised during funding allocation is often subjective, inconsistent, and prone to reviewer biases, leading to inefficiencies in selecting high-impact projects. This study aimed to develop an objective, transparent, and structured scoring system to improve research funding decisions.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec id=\"sec002\">\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>A mixed-methods approach was used, incorporating a scoping review, surveys, Delphi methodology, and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The scoping review identified funding criteria used by national and international agencies. A survey of researchers and decision-makers at the Royal Hospital in Muscat, Oman, gathered insights into funding priorities. Experts refined and validated criteria using the Delphi method, while weighted importance to each criterion as per the AHP was assigned through pairwise comparisons.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec id=\"sec003\">\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>The study identified 10 key criteria for funding decisions: scientific merit, ethical standards, novelty and innovation, significance and strategic alignment, feasibility, impact and knowledge transfer, budget and cost-efficiency, team expertise and collaboration, sustainability, and partnerships in funding. Based on AHP weighting, the final model prioritised Ethical Standards (21.7%), Scientific Merit (19.1%), and Novelty and Innovation (16.7%) as the highest-weighted criteria, together accounting for more than half of the overall decision weight.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec id=\"sec004\">\n                    <jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>The proposed scoring model provides a structured, evidence-based framework to enhance research funding decisions by enhancing consistency and transparency during peer review. It ensures alignment with institutional and national research priorities, while the inclusion of impact, feasibility, and sustainability criteria reflects a shift towards funding research that yields tangible societal and healthcare benefits. Future studies should evaluate implementation of the model in real-world settings and explore the role of artificial intelligence-driven decision-support tools to further refine research funding processes.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0350938","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,12]],"date-time":"2026-08-12T17:38:42Z","timestamp":1786556322000},"page":"e0350938","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.corrections_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["A peer-review decision support tool for research funding decision-making using the analytic hierarchy process"],"prefix":"10.1371","volume":"21","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-9816-4617","authenticated-orcid":true,"given":"Hasina","family":"Al Harthi","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Maryam","family":"Al Nabhani","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-3436-8757","authenticated-orcid":true,"given":"Sulaiman","family":"Al Sabei","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Amira","family":"A-Amri","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Shaima","family":"Al Hinaai","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Sa\u2019ada","family":"AlDhuhli","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"340","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,12]]},"reference":[{"key":"pone.0350938.ref001","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"93","DOI":"10.1093\/reseval\/rvx042","article-title":"A comparative review of how the policy and procedures to assess research impact evolved in Australia and the UK","volume":"27","author":"K Williams","year":"2018","journal-title":"Res Eval"},{"key":"pone.0350938.ref002","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"21","DOI":"10.1186\/1478-4505-10-21","article-title":"Contribution mapping: a method for mapping the contribution of research to enhance its impact","volume":"10","author":"MO Kok","year":"2012","journal-title":"Health Res Policy Syst"},{"issue":"11","key":"pone.0350938.ref003","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"21","DOI":"10.1080\/15265161.2018.1523494","article-title":"Practical problems related to health research funding decisions","volume":"18","author":"DB Resnik","year":"2018","journal-title":"Am J Bioeth"},{"key":"pone.0350938.ref004","author":"Association of Medical Research Charities"},{"issue":"5","key":"pone.0350938.ref005","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0196914","article-title":"Peer review of health research funding proposals: a systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency","volume":"13","author":"J Shepherd","year":"2018","journal-title":"PLoS One"},{"issue":"8","key":"pone.0350938.ref006","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0071693","article-title":"Teleconference versus face-to-face scientific peer review of grant application: effects on review outcomes","volume":"8","author":"SA Gallo","year":"2013","journal-title":"PLoS One"},{"key":"pone.0350938.ref007","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"318","DOI":"10.1186\/1472-6963-14-318","article-title":"UK research funding bodies\u2019 views towards public participation in health-related research decisions: an exploratory study","volume":"14","author":"JE van Bekkum","year":"2014","journal-title":"BMC Health Serv Res"},{"key":"pone.0350938.ref008","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"55","DOI":"10.1186\/s12913-015-0721-7","article-title":"Streamlined research funding using short proposals and accelerated peer review: an observational study","volume":"15","author":"AG Barnett","year":"2015","journal-title":"BMC Health Serv Res"},{"issue":"9","key":"pone.0350938.ref009","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0046054","article-title":"Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices","volume":"7","author":"H Abdoul","year":"2012","journal-title":"PLoS One"},{"key":"pone.0350938.ref010","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2","DOI":"10.1186\/1478-4505-7-2","article-title":"Is peer review useful in assessing research proposals in Indigenous health? A case study","volume":"7","author":"J Street","year":"2009","journal-title":"Health Res Policy Syst"},{"key":"pone.0350938.ref011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.3386\/w32033","volume-title":"Uncertainty and individual discretion in allocating research funds","author":"A Goldstein","year":"2024"},{"issue":"10","key":"pone.0350938.ref012","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0165147","article-title":"The influence of peer reviewer expertise on the evaluation of research funding applications","volume":"11","author":"SA Gallo","year":"2016","journal-title":"PLoS One"},{"key":"pone.0350938.ref013","article-title":"NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity","volume":"5","author":"FC Fang","year":"2016","journal-title":"Elife"},{"issue":"8","key":"pone.0350938.ref014","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"842","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2005.12.007","article-title":"Peering at peer review revealed high degree of chance associated with funding of grant applications","volume":"59","author":"NE Mayo","year":"2006","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"key":"pone.0350938.ref015","author":"SciVal"},{"key":"pone.0350938.ref016","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"161","DOI":"10.1016\/0270-0255(87)90473-8","article-title":"The analytic hierarchy process\u2014what it is and how it is used","volume":"9","author":"RM Saaty","year":"1987","journal-title":"Math Model"},{"key":"pone.0350938.ref017","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"840","DOI":"10.1016\/j.mcm.2007.03.018","article-title":"Validation examples of the analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process","volume":"46","author":"R Whitaker","year":"2007","journal-title":"Math Comput Model"},{"key":"pone.0350938.ref018","first-page":"347","article-title":"Fuzzy AHP group decision analysis and its application for the evaluation of energy sources","volume":"17","author":"O Meixner","year":"2009","journal-title":"Cent Eur J Oper Res"},{"key":"pone.0350938.ref019","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1335","DOI":"10.12688\/f1000research.11917.1","article-title":"What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?","volume":"6","author":"S Guthrie","year":"2017","journal-title":"F1000Res"},{"issue":"12","key":"pone.0350938.ref020","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2018-026207","article-title":"Directing research funds to the right research projects: a review of criteria used by research organisations in Australia in prioritising health research projects for funding","volume":"8","author":"HW Tuffaha","year":"2018","journal-title":"BMJ Open"},{"key":"pone.0350938.ref021","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1093\/eurpub\/ckad160.1285","article-title":"Integration of social return on investment with health impact assessment and evaluation frameworks","volume":"33","author":"K Ashton","year":"2023","journal-title":"Eur J Public Health"},{"issue":"2","key":"pone.0350938.ref022","first-page":"59","article-title":"Global trends and tendencies of becoming knowledge economy in the world economy","author":"KE Yu","year":"2020","journal-title":"Sci Notes V I Vernadsky Crimean Fed Univ Econ Manag"},{"key":"pone.0350938.ref023","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"693","DOI":"10.1002\/job.2362","article-title":"Team creativity\/innovation in culturally diverse teams: a meta-analysis","volume":"40","author":"J Wang","year":"2019","journal-title":"J Organ Behav"},{"issue":"8","key":"pone.0350938.ref024","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"210072","DOI":"10.1098\/rsos.210072","article-title":"The hidden influence of communities in collaborative funding of clinical science","volume":"8","author":"K Vasan","year":"2021","journal-title":"R Soc Open Sci"},{"issue":"4","key":"pone.0350938.ref025","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.2105\/AJPH.2012.300976","article-title":"Linking sustainability research to intervention types","volume":"103","author":"MA Scheirer","year":"2013","journal-title":"Am J Public Health"},{"issue":"1","key":"pone.0350938.ref026","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"135","DOI":"10.1108\/14637151011017985","article-title":"The effects of process orientation: a literature review","volume":"16","author":"M Kohlbacher","year":"2010","journal-title":"Bus Process Manag J"},{"issue":"3","key":"pone.0350938.ref027","first-page":"357","article-title":"Building inherently impactful research programs: the role of organizational context","volume":"4","author":"J Barbara","year":"2021","journal-title":"Policy Des Pract"}],"container-title":["PLOS One"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/dx.plos.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0350938","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,12]],"date-time":"2026-08-12T17:38:47Z","timestamp":1786556327000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/dx.plos.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0350938"}},"subtitle":[],"editor":[{"given":"Chih-Cheng","family":"Lin","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"editor"}]}],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,12]]},"references-count":27,"journal-issue":{"issue":"8","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,12]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0350938","relation":{},"ISSN":["1932-6203"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1932-6203","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,12]]}}}