Security, data and compliance in Scientific Grant Peer Review Platform

How Scientific Grant Peer Review Platform protects data and supports your compliance obligations.

Security controls

Records kept in the United States

Applications, reviews and reviewer data are hosted in the United States region.

Cleared support lane

Support tickets from federal clients are handled only by US citizens with active security clearances.

Access by assignment

Reviewers see only their assigned applications, and conflicts block access automatically.

Encryption under controlled keys

Client data is encrypted with keys Moraph staff cannot access without explicit, time-bound authorization.

Complete audit trail

Every view, assignment, conflict decision, score, edit and release is recorded with the person and time, and cannot be edited.

AI proposes, people decide

Reviewer suggestions, conflict flags and draft summary statements are proposals; review officers decide on each, and scores come only from reviewers.

Requirements it supports

• Scientific peer review of research grant applications (42 CFR Part 52h)
• Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR Part 200)
• Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 10)
• Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR Part 2635)
• Acts affecting a personal financial interest (18 U.S.C. 208)
• Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a)

The product supports these requirements; meeting them remains your organization's responsibility.

Where it runs

• Moraph cloud, United States: Hosted and operated by Moraph in the United States region, with records kept in the US.
• Dedicated environment: A single-tenant environment for agencies that require isolation, scoped in the proposal.
• With a managed service: Optionally run alongside a Moraph managed service for administration, reviewer support during review cycles and integration operations.

Limitations

• Conflict flags are possible conflicts, found from the data available. They can miss relationships that are not in that data, and they can flag relationships that are not conflicts. Review officers decide on every flag, and reviewers remain responsible for their own disclosures.
• It does not score applications or make funding decisions. Scores come from reviewers, and funding decisions are made by your authorized officials.
• Anonymized review removes identifying details the platform can detect; applications may still contain clues to the applicant's identity, so staff check reviewer copies before release.
• It is not an application submission portal or a grants management system. It works between the systems you already use for those.
• Draft summary statements are proposals assembled from critiques and notes, and must be edited and released by the review officer.
• Publication and affiliation data comes from sources your agency licenses or approves; their coverage limits what can be flagged.
• Moraph holds no FedRAMP authorization for this product. We map controls and provide documentation to support your agency's own authorization decision.
• Advisory council or board review, where your program requires it, takes place under your agency's procedures; the platform can provide the records for it.