CIHR Reviewers’ Guide for Fellowship Awards
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Peer Review at CIHR
- Summary of the Peer Review Process
- Step-by-Step Instructions
- Ranking of applications
- Feedback
- Appendix A – CIHR Fellowship Awards Adjudication Criteria
- Appendix B – CIHR Fellowship Awards Reviewer Worksheet
Introduction
On behalf of CIHR, we would like to thank the reviewers for agreeing to serve as a peer review committee member. The success of the peer review process is made possible by dedicated people like you who generously give their time and expertise. Your efforts are greatly appreciated by CIHR and the scientific community.
The purpose of this document is to provide information on the policies, procedures and process for the peer review of applications submitted to the CIHR Fellowship Awards program.
Note: As part of reviewers’ engagement in peer review at CIHR, we ask reviewers to take a moment to complete or update the Reviewer Profile on ResearchNet. The Reviewer Profile has been developed as a tool to build and support reviewer expertise management. For the Fellowship program, it is important to complete the First Independent Appointment section.
Peer Review at CIHR
Information on CIHR’s objectives, governance and policies; an outline of the roles and responsibilities of peer review committee members; and the policies, principles and procedures for peer review of applications can be found in the CIHR Peer Review Guide for Training and Salary Awards. It is important that reviewers become familiar with this document, as well as the present document, before starting the reviews.
Summary of the Peer Review Process
The CIHR Fellowship Awards program uses an individual structured review process, using the online ResearchNet platform. The review process is completed in one stage: an individual written review and rating of an assigned set of applications (there is no committee meeting). All eligible applications will be assigned to three (3) reviewers.
There are five (5) peer review committees for the Fellowship Awards program. Each application will be assigned to the committee with the mandate that most closely aligns with the applicant’s training, credentials and area of research.
Reviewers are asked to follow the step-by-step instructions below to successfully complete all peer review tasks:
- Step 1: Read the pertinent documentation
- Step 2: Identify conflicts of interests
- Step 3: Conduct in-depth review of assigned applications
- Step 4: Submit reviews and ratings on ResearchNet
- Step 5: Be prepared for a re-review
Step-by-Step Instructions
Step 1: Read the pertinent documentation
The peer review process for this program is described in detail in this document. It is essential to read the document and be familiar with it. It is also important to complete or update your Reviewer Profile on ResearchNet, complete the Reviewing for the Fellowship Award Program eLearning modules and read the following:
- the CIHR Peer Review Guide for Training and Salary Awards;
- the description of the program’s committee mandates;
- the CIHR Fellowship Funding Opportunity.
Step 2: Identify conflicts of interests
To identify conflicts of interests on the assigned set of applications, reviewers are to follow these steps:
- Log into ResearchNet.
- On the home page, click on the link of their assigned committee to open the main task list.
- Complete the task “Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy and Reviewer Consent” (once completed, it will “open” the other tasks).
- Open the “Manage Conflicts/Ability to Review” task.
- For each assigned application, use the information provided to indicate if you are able to review or if there is a conflict. If there is a conflict, CIHR will reassign the application to another reviewer.
Notes:
- Fellowship reviewers are asked to assess applications from a generalist’s perspective and should not declare conflicts simply because applications are outside their area of expertise.
- As other reviewers within your committee will also declare conflicts, it is likely that you will receive additional application assignments. The calibration of workloads will be maintained to ensure a fair peer review workload.
Step 3: Conduct in-depth review of assigned applications
Once conflicts have been identified, the full content of assigned applications will be available under the task “Conduct Reviews”. Reviewers should then follow the steps below.
3.1 Review the adjudication criteria
Reviewers should first become familiar with the adjudication criteria for this funding opportunity. They can be found at the end of this document in Appendix A. This appendix provides an interpretation of each criterion and identifies which elements of the application to review for that criterion.
CIHR is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which recognizes that scholarly outputs include a broad range of contributions and are not limited to published journal articles. When assessing applications, reviewers should consider:
- A range of contributions (e.g., research publications, reports, books, guidelines, datasets, code, tools, training and mentorship, volunteerism, community engagement, standards, software and commercialized products) and impacts (e.g., influence on policy and practice, influence on direction of thought, use of research results by stakeholders, health outcomes, societal outcomes, and distinctions-based, meaningful and culturally safe health research); and
- The context of the applicant (e.g., health problems, family responsibilities, disabilities, trauma and/or loss, pandemic impact, career stage, area(s) of research, experiential knowledge and diverse career paths) and how it may have impacted the applicant's performance (see range of contributions). Please see specific notes about research area and career stage:
- Reviewers should consider the research area/discipline of the applicant when reviewing an application, for example, publication productivity can vary when comparing a biomedical researcher, a clinician or a social scientist.
- Reviewers should consider the career stage of the applicants to better assess and calibrate their set of applications, for example, direct entry to fellowship from PhD vs. entry after several years outside academia. Please note that, while CIHR has removed the eligibility requirement that all applicants be within 3 years of their PhD, this is not intended to encourage additional time spent in postdoctoral positions. Reviewers are asked to think critically about whether the training position for which an individual is applying for funding will have the desired career benefits and impact compared to other applicants.
Reviewers should guard against placing too much value on the number of contributions – the focus must be on the impact and significance of the contributions. Reviewers should not use journal-based metrics such as the Journal Impact Factor as surrogate measures of quality and/or excellence as they introduce bias into the review process. Citation rates vary between disciplines and contexts; members must be mindful of this when considering them as part of their evaluation. Metrics such as number of publications and citations, and size and number of grants/awards should not be used in isolation to assess the applicant's achievements, contributions, and activities.
As stated in DORA, the “scientific content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published”. Applicants are instructed to elaborate and comment on their role, positive impact and importance of their research contributions for their 3 most significant contributions.
3.2 Read the assigned applications
Reviewers should read all their assigned applications in detail before rating any of them and take notes to capture their impressions. The CIHR Fellowship Awards Reviewer Worksheet in Appendix B provides a template that they may wish to use. This worksheet is for reviewers’ own personal use and will not be filed with CIHR.
Reviewers should review each application with a generalist’s perspective and assess the overall quality of the application including the applicant’s career goals, profile and expectations as well as the proposed research, using the appropriate adjudication criteria. It is important to note that many applicants will likely be conducting research outside of the reviewer’s research specialty.
It is important that reviewers are aware of the importance of the integration of sex and gender in research proposals and assess their appropriateness where applicable in their assigned set of applications. To learn more about Sex and Gender considerations in Research, reviewers are encouraged to complete these training modules:
- Introduction to Sex and Gender Considerations in Basic Science
- Introduction to Sex and Gender Considerations in Clinical and Epidemiological Research
- Assessing Sex and Gender Integration in Peer Review
When evaluating applications that involve and engage with First Nations, Inuk(Inuit) and Métis Peoples, reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the following training module and literature:
- Background context on Indigenous Health Research
- Ethics of Health Research Involving First Nations, Inuit and Métis People
- First Nations : The OCAP® principles, widely known and accepted were developed by the First Nations Information Governance Centre
- Inuit: Inuit Nunangat Policy and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami’s (ITK)’s National Inuit Strategy on Research (NISR) [ PDF (1.18 MB) - external link ]outlines data governance principles.
- Métis: principles guiding ethical research with Metis communities [ PDF (1.18 MB) - external link ]
- Visions for Distinctions-based Indigenous Health Legislation: Executive summary
As the agencies have signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), a global initiative whose purpose is to support the development and promotion of best practices in the assessment of scholarly research. DORA recognizes the need to improve the ways in which research is evaluated, beyond widely used journal-based metrics. As signatories of DORA, CIHR recognize and value a broad range of contributions and emphasize their quality and impact. Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the list of resources available to them.
To ensure that all applications are treated equally, reviewers are asked to base their evaluation only on the content of the application and not to complete any additional research (e.g. looking for publications via PubMed).
3.3 Learning for participants in peer review
CIHR offers a number of learning modules to help you gain in-depth knowledge about our programs, processes and tools. These modules are intended to ensure that all participants in the peer review process have the same base knowledge of the processes and policies in order to conduct effective and fair peer review.
Addressing bias
As reviewers read the applications, they should be aware of and take actions to mitigate against bias related to gender, ethnicity, disability, Indigenous identity and Indigenous ways of knowing, institution size, region, age, language (including official language and minority communities bias) and interdisciplinary approaches to research. For example, it is important to be aware that:
- Career interruptions for childbearing and family responsibilities can influence opportunity for knowledge production, publications and related variables;
- Different disciplines, environments and diverse career paths offer different opportunities for research contributions (e.g., publications, influence on policy and practice, patents, knowledge mobilization activities, etc.);
- The reputation of institutions should not affect the reviewer's view of applicants or their research training environment;
- It is important to take steps to mitigate bias in reviewers' thought process about differences in culture (e.g. Indigenous Peoples of Canada);
- Recognize Indigenous identity in a reconciliation, nation-to-nation framework; and,
- A point should be made of respecting Canada's linguistic duality by recognizing the value of research in French and the value of research on Francophone minority communities.
To learn more about bias in peer review, reviewers must complete the related learning module.
Sex and Gender in Health Research
Reviewers must complete one of the three Sex and Gender in Health Research online modules self-selected by each reviewer to align with their area of expertise:
- Introduction to Sex and Gender Considerations in Basic Science
- Introduction to Sex and Gender Considerations in Clinical and Epidemiological Research
- Assessing Sex and Gender Integration in Peer Review
3.4 Rate their assigned applications
Reviewers are then asked to rate their assigned applications against each of the adjudication criteria described in Appendix A, using CIHR’s rating scale (below). It is particularly important that the full scale be used.
Applications rated below 3.5 are not eligible for CIHR funding, including those from partnerships/priority announcement programs.
Descriptor | Range | Definition | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|
Outstanding | 4.5 – 4.9 | The application excels in most or all relevant aspects. Any short-comings are minimal. | May be Funded |
Excellent | 4.0 – 4.4 | The application excels in many relevant aspects, and reasonably addresses all others. Certain improvements are possible. | |
Very Good | 3.5 – 3.9 | The application excels in some relevant aspects, and reasonably addresses all others. Some improvements are necessary. | |
Good | 3.0 – 3.4 | The application broadly addresses relevant aspects. Major revisions are required. | Not Fundable |
Average | 2.0 – 2.9 | The application fails to provide convincing information and/or has serious inherent flaws or gaps. | |
Below Average | 1.0 – 1.9 | ||
Not Acceptable | 0.0 – 0.9 |
3.5 Provide a written assessment for each assigned application
Reviewers must provide a concisely written assessment (limited to 4000 characters) for each assigned application that supports their ratings, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the application for each adjudication criteria. The written reviews will provide constructive advice to applicants to assist them in improving the quality and efficiency of the proposed training.
Reviewers should focus their comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the application for each adjudication criteria:
- Keep it simple;
- Use familiar descriptors, such as those from the CIHR rating scale, that align with your rating;
- Include justification, context and an explanation of your comments, if applicable, for each topic introduced;
- Respect DORA principles by considering a range of contributions and impacts and avoiding the use of journal-based metrics such as Journal Impact Factors as surrogate measures of quality. Do not use metrics such as number of publications and citations, and size and number of grants or awards in isolation to assess the applicant – instead, balance quantitative metrics with qualitative parts of the proposal;
- Be clear and concise;
- While brevity is acceptable (e.g. using bullets), express complete thoughts and ensure the length is sufficient enough to inform the reader;
- Use objective and non-inflammatory language – avoid any biased language or approach;
- Carefully avoid language that might be construed as sarcastic, flippant, arrogant or inappropriate in any way.
- When referring to the applicant use gender neutral pronouns or phrases. For example, use “they” or “the applicant,” rather than “he” or “she”.
The applicant will receive the review as it is submitted by the reviewer. For this reason, reviewers are to refrain from inserting scores in the comments and should not identify themselves in order to ensure the confidentiality of the review process.
For additional guidance on conducting high quality reviews please refer to CIHR’s Review Quality Expectations and Review Quality Checklist, as well as the Conducting Quality Reviews learning module.
3.6 Flag issues for CIHR’s attention
Any concerns regarding the application, eligibility, ethics, human stem cells, etc. should be reported to CIHR staff immediately for follow-up and should not be noted in the written comments unless they impact the scientific quality of the application. Concerns may be expressed by email to FellowshipAward-BourseDeRecherche@cihr-irsc.gc.ca (note that this email is strictly meant for Peer Review activities).For the full list of potential issues, please refer to the CIHR Peer Review Guide for Training and Salary Awards.
Similarly, if you believe there may be a misrepresentation of information in an application or a breach of Agency policy, please inform us immediately so we can determine whether the issue needs to be addressed through the responsible conduct of research (RCR) process. For a list of potential breaches, please refer to the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research.
Step 4: Submit reviews and ratings on ResearchNet
As the reviewers perform their evaluation, the reviews can be saved as drafts by selecting “Save draft copy” on ResearchNet. This allows reviewers to make changes at a later time. However, in order to submit the reviews and ratings to CIHR, reviewers must select “Submit Final Review”. Afterwards, no modifications will be possible.
It is important for reviewers to respect the deadline provided by submitting their reviews and scores via ResearchNet by the date specified via correspondence with CIHR staff responsible for this program. Delays in the peer review process will jeopardize CIHR’s ability to release decisions to applicants by the published date. If, at any point in the process, a reviewer determines that they may not be able to submit their reviews on or before the deadline, they must contact CIHR staff as soon as possible.
Step 5: Be prepared for a re-review
Once all the overall scores are submitted, CIHR will perform a discrepancy review by calculating the final rating for each application. CIHR will then identify applications which are at risk of an unfair decision because of a wide spread between the reviewers’ overall score . In such cases, CIHR will ask three reviewers to reconsider their initial assessment and resubmit scores. In order to do so, they will be asked to get in contact with each other to discuss the application. Reviewers do not have access to the other reviewer’s scores/reviews.. However, when necessary, CIHR staff responsible for the program will help facilitate the re-review process.
For this purpose, it is recommended that reviewers keep their working notes on file until a few weeks after the competition results have been announced.
Ranking of applications
Upon completion of the peer review process, CIHR will generate a ranking list of the applications. Ties between overall scores are often found within these competition-ranking lists. CIHR has a process in place should the number of ties found in the fundable range exceed the overall budget allocated for the competition. The ties are broken using the committee percent rank for ties between applications in different committees, and the consolidated percent rank for ties between applications within a committee.
Feedback
An important component of the peer review process is the review of the committee’s effectiveness and functioning, and feedback on policy issues that may have arisen during the process. This feedback provides an opportunity for CIHR staff to address any concerns from committee members and for staff to record comments on the peer review process as part of CIHR’s ongoing efforts to maintain an effective and high-quality peer review system.
Since there is no face-to-face or teleconference meeting, reviewers’ feedback should be communicated to the committee program officer by email at FellowshipAward-BourseDeRecherche@cihr-irsc.gc.ca (note that this email is strictly meant for Peer Review activities).
Appendix A – CIHR Fellowship Awards Adjudication Criteria
There are three adjudication criteria for the Fellowship program, they are as follows.
Criterion | Notes/advice to reviewers | Where to look: |
---|---|---|
1. Achievements and Activities of the Applicant (60%) CIHR has signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which recognizes that scholarly outputs include a broad range of contributions and impacts and are not limited to published journal articles. It is important that reviewers take into account the context of the applicant (e.g., health problems, family responsibilities, disabilities, trauma and/or loss, pandemic impact, area(s) of research, experiential knowledge and diverse career paths) and how it may have impacted the applicant’s performance. Reviewers should take into account the career stage of the applicants to better assess and calibrate their set of applications (e.g., direct entry to fellowship from PhD vs. entry after several years outside academia). Also note that longer time spent conducting postdoctoral work (e.g., more than 5 years) or post-health professional training may not necessarily result in a higher probability of obtaining an academic position. |
||
a) Training Expectations |
Weight in overall score for this sub-criterion: 10% This section provides an overview of how the applicant's previous training relates to the present proposal and elaborates on career goals.
|
See Training Expectation section |
b) Proposed Research Project |
Weight in overall score for this sub-criterion: 10% This section provides a research project summary, which should be completed in collaboration with the proposed supervisor(s) and be written in general scientific language.
|
See Research Project Summary and the proposal information |
c) Honours, Awards and Academic Distinctions |
Weight in overall score for this sub-criterion: 10% This section provides a list of official recognitions (i.e. distinctions, Honours and Prizes/Awards) received by the applicant, including training awards (competitive or not, monetary or not, declined … etc.)
|
See Applicant’s CCV including sections ‘Recognitions’ and ‘Research Funding History’ |
d) Research-Related Contributions and Activities |
Weight in overall score for this sub-criterion: 30% In these sections, reviewers should consider a range of contributions (e.g., research publications, reports, books, guidelines, datasets, code, tools, training and mentorship, volunteerism, community engagement, standards, software and commercialized products) and impacts (e.g., influence on policy and practice, influence on direction of thought, use of research results by stakeholders, health outcomes, societal outcomes, and distinctions-based, meaningful and culturally safe health research). Look for:
|
See Applicant’s CCV including sections Activities’, ‘Contributions’ and ‘Additional CCV Information’ |
2. Sponsor’s Assessment of the Applicant’s Characteristics and Abilities Note: It is important that reviewers take into account the career stage of the applicants to better assess and calibrate their set of applications (e.g. direct entry to fellowship from PhD vs. entry after several years outside academia). Also note that longer time spent conducting postdoctoral work (e.g., more than 5 years) or post-health professional training may not necessarily result in a higher probability of obtaining an academic position. |
||
Weight in Overall Score: 20% In this section, three sponsors provide an assessment of the applicant. These assessments should come from individuals under whom the applicant has trained, who are familiar with the applicant’s characteristics and abilities and/or who have had a good opportunity to assess their potential for research. Keep in mind that applicants have no opportunity within the application to provide a justification for their choices of sponsors. With the Sponsor Assessment Form:
|
See the sponsor forms that provide an assessment of the applicant | |
3. Research Training Environment | ||
Weight in Overall Score: 20% This section describes elements of the research environment that will contribute directly or indirectly to the quality of the applicant’s’ research training experience that are available. It should demonstrate the commitment of the proposed supervisor(s) and their institution to support the development of the applicant’s research project (funding, facilities, equipment, etc.) and professional development.
|
See section Research Training Environment that describes the space, facilities, and personnel support available to the applicant |
Appendix B – CIHR Fellowship Awards Reviewer Worksheet
The following table is meant to guide reviewers in the evaluation of the application. It is strictly for their working notes and will not be filed with CIHR.
Applicant Name: ___________________________________ Application #: __________________
Criterion | Score | Reviewers Comments | |
---|---|---|---|
1. Achievements & Activities of the Applicant (60%) | a) Training Expectations (10%) |
Strengths:
|
|
b) Proposed Research Project (10%) | |||
c) Honours, Awards and Academic Distinctions (10%) | |||
d) Research-Related Contributions and Activities (30%) | |||
2. Sponsor’s Assessment of the Applicant’s Characteristics and Abilities (20%) |
Strengths:
|
||
3. Research Training Environment (20%) |
Strengths:
|
- Date modified: