Reviewer response for version 1
Summary: This paper provides a review and analysis of the quality and suitability of M&E metrics for funding that is allocated to strengthen research capacity in LMIC's. 
Published and grey literature has been reviewed to identify indicators used to measure the outputs, outcomes and impacts of relevant programmes and the findings have been assessed in terms of content and quality. 
The authors conclude that the outcome indicators identified were of low quality and impact indicators are almost always missing from RCS MEL frameworks and recommend further work to develop appropriate indicators to measure the outcomes and impacts of research capacity strengthening programmes/activities. 
Through the review of existing outcome indicators the authors have identified four focal areas against which indicators could be developed.
Methods:
- The search strategy and study selection is clearly described and links to source data are available. 
Data extraction and analysis methods are also clearly described.
Major:
- No major points to address. 
This work is by a leading team in the field of RCS research and makes a useful contribution to the literature in providing a thorough review of indicators used to monitor and evaluate work funded to strengthen research capacity.
Minor:
- Though the article is not focused on health research, health is specifically referred to in a few places throughout the article e.g. line 4 (and corresponding references) of the introduction, Research Funding example indicators in Table 2, RMS example indicators in Table 3, numbers 5 and 6 of the 6 outcome indicators meeting all four quality criteria refer to TDR, and the impact indicators are all acknowledged as being specific to health and wellbeing. 
It would be interesting to understand which other research disciplines featured in the literature reviewed, and the spread of results across disciplines in order that analysis and findings could indicate if there is variety between and/or within disciplines in approaches to MEL for RCS and what can be learnt from this.
- No background, references or justification is given for the pre-determined 'quality' criteria.
- The authors note in 'Limitations' that project documents were not available in the public domain and documents not in English were excluded. 
Further reflection on to what extent Log Frames, ToC's and other MEL docs for programmes that have RCS as a primary or secondary outcome would be in the public domain could be helpful e.g. is it common for delivery partners of RCS programmes to make their MEL docs publicly available? 
If not, are these indicators representative of those currently/recently being used by actors in the RCS programme delivery space or do they represent a subset that is more likely to have publicly available data?
Structure
Recap
Recap
Recap
Recap
Structure
Strength
Strength
Structure
Other
Strength
Structure
Recap
Todo
Weakness
Recap
Todo
Todo