01488nas a2200181   4500000000100000008004100001260001200042100002600054700001700080700002100097700002000118245010000138856004300238300001200281490000700293520099200300022001401292       2023                            d  c2023-081 aRebecca Abma-Schouten1 aJoey Gijbels1 aWendy Reijmerink1 aIngeborg Meijer00aEvaluation of research proposals by peer review panels: broader panels for broader assessments?  uhttps://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad009  a619-6320 v503 aPanel peer review is widely used to decide which research proposals receive funding. Through this exploratory observational study at two large biomedical and health research funders in the Netherlands, we gain insight into how scientific quality and societal relevance are discussed in panel meetings. We explore, in ten review panel meetings of biomedical and health funding programmes, how panel composition and formal assessment criteria affect the arguments used. We observe that more scientific arguments are used than arguments related to societal relevance and expected impact. Also, more diverse panels result in a wider range of arguments, largely for the benefit of arguments related to societal relevance and impact. We discuss how funders can contribute to the quality of peer review by creating a shared conceptual framework that better defines research quality and societal relevance. We also contribute to a further understanding of the role of diverse peer review panels.  a0302-3427