Projects Peer Review Panel (PPRP) 2027

Projects Peer Review Panel (PPRP) 2027

The Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), runs Projects Peer Review Panel (PPRP) rounds for large or complex projects with significant scientific priority. The current 2027 opportunity is open. It is not an unrestricted call: a team can submit a full application only after it has received an invitation following a successful Statement of Interest (SoI). The project lead must be based at an organisation eligible for STFC funding.

The official opportunity page gives an opening date of 7 September 2026 and a closing date of 31 August 2027. That public closing date is useful for planning, but the deadline paragraph says STFC must receive each application by the date specified by the relevant programme manager. Invitees should therefore treat their own manager’s date as the submission deadline and leave time for their organisation’s internal review and submission process.

Key details

What the panel route supports

PPRP reviews substantial work where scientific priority, delivery arrangements, and resources need close assessment. The listed programme areas are particle physics, nuclear physics, astronomy, particle astrophysics, accelerator physics, and computing for the PPAN programme. Within those areas, projects may involve participation in high-priority experiments or missions, developing instruments or accelerator technologies, developing or upgrading detectors, buying or upgrading major high-performance computing facilities, operating existing facilities, or developing e-science initiatives such as modelling and data management.

These examples describe the kinds of work the opportunity can support; they are not a promise that every project in one of those fields qualifies. The page directs applicants to contact the relevant programme manager about specific eligibility and fit. A useful first question is therefore whether the proposed project sits within a current STFC programme priority and is at the scale and stage suitable for PPRP review. A strong technical idea alone does not replace this programme-level fit or the invitation requirement.

The public page does not advertise one maximum award amount. Instead, the full economic cost can be up to the budget envelope advised and agreed with the STFC programme manager. STFC funds 80% of FEC, leaving the standard 20% contribution outside the STFC share. The 2027 page says there is no additional institutional matched-funding requirement beyond that standard 20% FEC, and reviewers must not use extra institutional matched funding as a basis for recommendations. Organisations still need to provide the research environment and infrastructure required for the work. Third-party partner contributions, including in-kind contributions, are encouraged.

Project duration is described as whatever is needed to deliver the work. The opportunity explicitly excludes project studentships. Applicants should distinguish a project’s scientific and infrastructure requirements from a request to fund studentships, and should cost staff, facilities, equipment, operations, and other resources against the proposed work and agreed envelope.

Who can apply

There are two separate checks: the applicant must qualify institutionally, and the team must have access to the invited full-application stage. The project lead must be based at an organisation eligible for STFC funding. UKRI describes the 2027 opportunity as open to organisations with standard eligibility and links to its organisation eligibility guidance. Because programme areas may have specific requirements, prospective teams should confirm their circumstances with the programme manager rather than infer eligibility only from the broad subject area.

The full proposal is limited to applicants invited after a successful SoI. The 2027 page says to discuss ideas with a programme manager and follow their advice, including whether to submit a Statement of Interest to the STFC Science Board. An SoI is reviewed by the appropriate programme manager for completeness and then passed to the Science Board. STFC aims to provide SoI feedback within 20 working days. That stated service aim is not an assurance that an invitation will be issued, or that a later application will be funded.

The lead research organisation submits the application. The project lead is responsible for completing the Funding Service application, with contributions expected from team members and project partners. The organisation needs to be registered with the UKRI Funding Service; this opportunity does not use the Joint Electronic Submissions (Je-S) system. Research office and finance staff check hosting arrangements and financial eligibility, while the applicant remains responsible for meeting the opportunity’s requirements.

How to apply

Begin by discussing the proposal with the programme manager for its STFC area. Ask whether the project is in scope, what specific eligibility applies, and whether the team should submit an SoI to the STFC Science Board. Do not prepare a full Funding Service application on the assumption that a public call page makes the full stage available to everyone. The full application route starts with an invitation link sent separately by email.

After an invitation arrives, the project lead should:

1. Confirm that they are the project lead and that the lead organisation is eligible and ready to use the Funding Service.
2. Open the invitation link, sign in or create a Funding Service account, and select the organisation. New users verify their email address and set a password.
3. Complete the application questions in the service. Answers can be saved and resumed, or prepared offline and copied into the service. Follow the service’s upload instructions for any requested documents.
4. Check the completed application in the service’s read-only view before sending it to the research office.
5. Send the application to the research office for review. Make any corrections it returns, then allow the office to submit the checked application to UKRI.

The programme manager’s date is the operative deadline for an invited application; the public closing date should not be used to override a specific date communicated to the team. The official page says an application cannot be changed after submission and may be rejected if it does not follow the guidance. Build institutional checks and the Funding Service handoff into the schedule rather than leaving them to the final day.

Preparing the proposal

The main Vision and Approach response is a single PDF, no more than 70 sides of A4, single-spaced, in 11-point Arial or an equivalent sans-serif font, with margins of at least 2cm. It should cover the criteria and also include the project management material. The file name should use the unique Funding Service number followed by “Vision and Approach”; the file must be no larger than 8MB. The application page lists the assessment criteria and document requirements in detail, so invited applicants should work from that live guidance when assembling the final package.

The Vision should explain why the work is important, what new understanding or discovery it can deliver, why it is timely, and how it could affect research, society, the economy, or the environment. The Approach should show that the plan can achieve its objectives, identify and manage delivery risks, build on prior work where relevant, and explain how outputs can lead to outcomes. STFC programme fit, governance, monitoring, staff time, and feasible descoping options belong in that delivery case. Describe the project’s scientific value and its practical execution together: reviewers need to see both what the work could accomplish and how the team will carry it out.

Project Management has a 20-word confirmation field, but the requested management detail belongs in the Vision and Approach document. The official guidance calls for a plan based on STFC’s Project Management Framework, with staff roles, schedule and reporting, a Gantt chart, change control, monitoring, project structure and scope, and descope options explaining the implications of a 10% reduction in total project cost. It also asks teams to assess feasibility and technical risks, address risks associated with economic and societal impact and leadership objectives, and explain how they will translate outputs into outcomes and impacts.

The team capability response uses the Résumé for Research and Innovation (R4RI) format and has a 1,650-word limit: 1,150 words for the R4RI modules, including references, and up to 500 words for optional additions. Evidence should show relevant experience, a balanced set of skills, leadership and management ability, development of others, and contribution to a positive research environment and wider community. Write about the whole team and explain how its combined experience matches the work rather than relying on a list of impressive but unrelated past achievements.

Other sections cover ethics and responsible research and innovation, resources and cost justification, organisational support, partners, data management and sharing, facilities, and Trusted Research and Innovation. Budget justification should focus particularly on staff, substantial field or collaboration travel, equipment costing more than £25,000, unusual consumables, facilities and infrastructure, and items costed as exceptions. The organisation’s support statement must be approved by an appropriate institutional authority and include a significant person’s name and position plus an office address or web link. Partner details should explain contributions; letters or emails of support must confirm commitment and describe value and relevance. Confirm facility access where required and address relevant data, ethics, security, and international collaboration considerations.

Assessment and planning

UKRI lists vision, approach, project management, applicant and team capability, ethics and responsible research and innovation, and resources and cost justification as assessment areas. PPRP can consider reviews from external experts, project-management review, and the applicant’s response. Its meeting includes an applicant presentation and questions. The process can also request credible descoping scenarios as a value-for-money check. STFC makes the final funding decision.

The page says outcomes are communicated to applicants rather than publicly listed and describes assessment as based on each project’s merit against published criteria, without a rank order. It aims to complete assessment within nine months of receiving an application; elsewhere it says a successful proposal averages six to nine months through the process, excluding the grant being awarded. These are planning expectations rather than guaranteed decision dates. If a proposal is discussed by a panel, UKRI says feedback will be provided with the outcome.

For an invited team, a practical schedule starts with confirming the manager’s deadline, the lead organisation’s eligibility and internal approval route, and the agreed budget envelope. Then assign owners for the scientific case, management plan, costing, partner evidence, facilities, data, and responsible-research sections. Ask the research office how it wants to receive the draft and supporting records. A final cross-check should verify that the narrative, milestones, risks, resources, and any descope scenario all describe the same project.

Official source and contact

The official UKRI opportunity page for Projects Peer Review Panel (PPRP) 2027 contains the application questions, criteria, and current instructions. For opportunity-specific questions, it lists Malcolm Booy and Roy Stephen at STFC. It also lists programme managers for astronomy, accelerators and particle physics, and nuclear physics, as well as the STFC Science Board contact. Contact the relevant programme manager about fit, specific eligibility, SoI expectations, and the deadline for an invited application. Contact the research office first for costing and submission support.