Why Peer Review Is Central to Research — But Not Usually SR&ED Eligible

May 26, 2026 | Jesse Ehrlick

Peer review is one of the foundational mechanisms underlying biomedical and clinical research.

It influences:

• funding decisions
• publication processes
• grant refinement
• institutional research development

At nearly every stage of the research ecosystem, some form of peer evaluation is involved.

Yet despite its importance, peer review itself is generally not considered an SR&ED-eligible activity.

Understanding why helps clarify an important distinction within research funding frameworks.

The Function of Peer Review

At its core, peer review is an evaluative process.

Researchers review the work of other researchers to assess:

• scientific quality
• methodological rigor
• clarity of research direction
• alignment with funding or publication criteria

This process helps strengthen research programs and improve the quality of scientific work over time.

In academic medicine and biomedical research environments, peer review also contributes to institutional research development by helping researchers refine applications before submission into highly competitive funding systems.

Why SR&ED Treats Peer Review Differently

SR&ED is designed to support experimental advancement and the resolution of scientific or technological uncertainty.

As a result, the program focuses primarily on activities directly related to:

• experimentation
• hypothesis testing
• iterative development
• technical refinement
• analysis tied to advancing knowledge or capability

Peer review generally occurs outside that experimental process.

Its purpose is evaluative rather than investigative.

Even though peer review may improve the quality of research, it does not usually constitute experimental development itself.

The Boundary Between Research and Evaluation

Modern research environments involve many interconnected layers of activity.

For example, a clinician-scientist research program may involve:

• experimental protocol development
• clinical data analysis
• collaborative technical refinement
• grant writing and peer feedback
• institutional review processes

Some of these activities may align with SR&ED criteria.

Others — particularly evaluative or administrative processes — generally do not.

This distinction is important because research ecosystems are increasingly collaborative and operationally complex.

Why the Distinction Matters

In practice, one of the biggest challenges in assessing SR&ED eligibility is separating:

• work that advances scientific or technological understanding
from
• work that supports, evaluates, or administers research activity

Both are important.

But they serve different functions within the research ecosystem.

Recognizing that distinction is essential for accurately understanding how research activities fit within funding frameworks.