Is Panel-phobia a Myth or Reality?
After years of submitting research proposals whether to the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (in the years of the IRPA followed by the Science Fund), the Ministry of Education (FRGS and LRGS) and other funding agencies, I am sure many of us have our own stories to tell about those experience. Many of us have had our proposals rejected and it has become somewhat customary to get a one-paragraph reply as to the reasons of rejection. Some unlucky ones have also received a one-line reply from the panel. I have met a good number of researchers, young and not-so-young too, who have suffered badly from rejection especially when they do not know the real reason (in detail) for the rejection by the panel. Many of them (with their co-researchers) have spent a lot of effort, weeks or even months brainstorming and preparing the proposal, of course making sure the research question and objectives are original and that the research design is appropriate etc. I have met researchers who have been emotionally traumatised by the rejection that some have even vowed not to submit any more proposals. I want to introduce the term ‘panel-phobia’ which I coined just to reflect the fear of rejection by a panel. I believe it is a real phenomenon and the incidence will rise as our members of the relevant panel continue to give a one-paragraph rebuttal to proposal submission.
The first question many of us will ask is ‘how are these panel members selected anyway’? We assume that they are really experts in their field. Is it because they have many publications, many citations compared to others and also a high H index? What would be the requirements to be an expert in a particular field? A friend of mine once presented a proposal to a panel where one of the members has just 5 publications up his sleeve. She knew because she went back to check on his publications. In this google-era, it is easy for one to check on the credibility of a panel member in terms of research and publications. Another colleague who is one of the top immunologists in the country was questioned by a ‘young’ immunologist about his study, and the latter insisted that she was right. The next issue is the term of appointment of a panel member. Many researchers have complained that there are members who have been sitting in certain high-level funding panel for a long time. And worse of all, a number of them are just armchair researchers and have lost touch with the latest advances in research and technologies.
For those real researchers out there who are familiar with submitting articles to journals, the majority of reviewers will give a detailed comment to the paper even if it is rejected. The purpose is to help the researcher to improve and perhaps to submit the paper elsewhere. For those who have been fortunate to see the reports of reviewers from international grants, again the review is comprehensively done. A good panel member will provide the rationale and reasons for rejection with fairness and clarity. The better ones will even make suggestions on improvements.
There are many of us researchers who would like the relevant authorities (who appoint these panel members) to relook at this ‘panel issue’ and also be aware of panel-phobia. I believe that we should have a clear criteria on who should sit on a panel, and who actually qualifies to be a panel member for grant funding and also for the assessment of research institutes. A panel member must be knowledgeable and brave enough to put his/her reasons for rejecting a proposal on paper. We should also avoid having ‘life members’ to any panel. Most international funding agencies adopt the 3-year term to ensure transparency and fairness to all. If there is no local expert in a particular subject matter, please bring in the regional experts either physically or for them to review on-line.
I would like to mention here my mentor, Professor Dato’ Dr. Khalid Kadir, who is an outstanding academician, clinician and researcher. I had the honour of serving in the research committee of the Faculty of Medicine ¼¯ÃÀÂ鶹 together with him in the year 1997 until he retired from ¼¯ÃÀÂ鶹. He was an exemplary panel member who would listen intently to those who are presenting and would always give a very fair and comprehensive review especially to those who fail. On many occasions he would go one step further by giving advice on how to improve the research further. Despite his in-depth knowledge of medicine and research, I have never seen him undermine or humiliate any researcher during a proposal presentation.
A truly good panellist is knowledgeable, impartial, honest, brave, able to judge fairly, not personal, not biased and will be ready to put on paper with clarity the reasons for rejection. They should also put professional jealousy aside and if they are not experts in the field they will admit so.
 I want to end positively by saying that there are good panel members out there. Many are really doing a great job helping to screen, assess and approve thousands of research proposals. We salute them and these are the ones who are helping the nation and the research fraternity to do good science, and they will help reduce this phenomenon of panel-phobia. Let us all hope that this ‘panel-phobia’ will not persist and become a true medical ailment.
Professor Datuk Dr. A Rahman A Jamal