Championing ECCO’s fantastic grant reviewers
Nick Powell, SciCom Member
 Nick Powell © ECCO |
ECCO is proud of its continuing commitment to support innovative IBD research through its Fellowships, Grants and Travel Awards, including our flagship Pioneer Awards. Our grant programme now extends beyond the borders of Europe with the emergence of our new Global Grant supporting IBD research for low and lower-middle income countries. All of these research efforts continue to improve our understanding of IBD and change outcomes for our patients. None of this would be possible without our community of grant reviewers who provide an invaluable scientific service to the ECCO Family and the broader field of IBD. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to our growing reviewer network of more than 500 experts, who have reviewed over 750 applications.
In this issue of the ECCO Newsletter we really wanted to highlight two “super reviewers”, Amy Lightner and Hannah Gordon, who have gone above and beyond the call of duty and delivered the highest overall number of reviews. Thank you both! To better understand the peer review process, what motivates reviewers and why potential reviewers in the ECCO Community might want to get involved in the process, I caught up with Amy and Hannah.
 Amy Lightner © ECCO |
Amy Lightner is a clinical academic at the Scripps Research Institute, San Diego, California. She has a 50:50 job split between general surgery with an IBD focus and running a science lab. Amy has been reviewing grants for ECCO for two to three years.
What motivates you to review grants?
Probably for the same reason that I review papers. One reason is that I think that it's just a good way to give back to our community. It is great to be able to give suggestions and good feedback, and another perspective to maybe enhance the work that is being done. It’s nice to have a voice in the academic community as to what we think is clinically important, so that it actually has an impact and hopefully makes things better. I also think reviewing grants stimulates your own thoughts and ideas, which improves your own science and projects.
What advice or tips or “tricks of the trade” would you give to people thinking about reviewing grants for ECCO?
Time management is critical, and it is important to set aside time to dedicate to the process. The process for ECCO is very straightforward. Getting involved in reviewing is also a really good way of learning more about the research activity going in the community, and I definitely think that reading and critically reviewing grants has improved the way I write grants and papers.
What does a good grant application look like to you?
A competitive application showcases a good idea that is relevant to our community and addresses an important clinical or translational question. It is really important that the study sounds feasible in the proposed research environment. It is more convincing if the applicant already shows independence, or at least has the right support network and mentorship. The structure of the grant is really important. It is important to keep the big picture in mind and to set a clear tone and logical path for the reviewer to follow in a stepwise fashion, without getting lost in the weeds. Brevity and clarity are effective ways of communicating the big picture.
 Hannah Gordon © ECCO |
Hannah Gordon was recently appointed as a consultant at the Translational Gastroenterology Unit in Oxford. She has an interest in promoting health equality and is chair of GuiCom. Hannah has been reviewing grants for many years.
Why did you get involved in reviewing grants for ECCO?
I thought it was an opportunity to learn more about up-and-coming projects, and to help support new research initiatives. I started out as a fellow and felt a bit uncomfortable reviewing when I had not yet completed a PhD, or undertaken that much research myself. However, SciCom matched me with a senior reviewer. I was pleased when we were well aligned with our opinions.
What tips or “tricks of the trade” would you suggest makes an effective and productive grant reviewer?
Trust your gut. Make sure the application is logical and has a clear flow and purpose. Check the proposed budget – if care and attention have not been put into how the money will be used, this is a red flag. Look at the track record of the applicant: Are they likely to deliver? There is a balance between supporting newer initiatives with perhaps fewer relevant publications and larger projects where the ECCO Funds may in reality form a smaller contribution of multiple grants. Be effective and productive – systematically go through the scoring sheet.
What do you think makes a good grant application, and what advice would you give applicants for ECCO Grants?
Have a clear narrative, including a clear lay summary with diagrams and figures if possible. Other positives are a strong track record of delivery, adherence to the guidelines on how to write the application and a clear itemised budget of how the money will be spent, with clear and realistic timelines.
ECCO are now in the process of reviewing applications for the 2024–2025 awards. On behalf of SciCom and the Governing Board of ECCO, we would like to thank the brilliant work done by all of our reviewers. If you are interested in reviewing grants for ECCO, please get in touch: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
We treasure the Reviewers of ECCO: If you would like to join the ECCO Reviewer Community and learn more about reviewer opportunities, please contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or come to the “Join the Reviewers of ECCO” Coffee break - a networking occasion in the ECCO’25 Members Lounge, Berlin, see upcoming programme details for details.