A peer review may be performed as a necessary part of a funding proposal; however, even if it isn’t specified as a necessity by the funder, peer review can be sought for further guidance and as additional good practice step.

Peer review or independent scientific review is a process where a research proposal is critiqued by an experienced researcher/clinician with expertise in that subject area (or team of clinicians and researchers). They will mainly be reviewing and commenting on the research question and will want to ensure the hypothesis is robust and able to reach its end point(s). Also, having an experienced researcher review the proposal will increase the probability of a grant being approved, especially for first time applicants. For some institutions, peer reviewed application is a prerequisite for funding and so applicants will need to show evidence of this prior to submitting their application.

Whoever is nominated to peer review the proposal should ideally be independent of the trial team to remove any bias. They should also have extensive experience in the subject area, but also in critiquing research proposals. They will help address issues that need to be taken into consideration to ensure a successful application.

For clinical trials, the review by an experienced researcher will not only increase the likelihood of the research being approved for funding but it will also improve the chances of approval being granted by the regulatory and Ethics Committees.

References
Writing a good proposal - Economic and Social Research Council Shaping Society
http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding/guidance-for-applicants/how-to-write-a-good-research-grant-proposal/

National Institute of neurological Disorders and Stroke - National Institute of Health (NIH) : how to write a research project grant application
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/write_grant_doc.htm

Bowman S.J. and Macfarlane G.J. “Successful patient recruitment in investigator-led clinical trials”. Rheumatology (oxford) 2007 46 (7) pg 1207-1208