Clarifying the Fall 2017 Project Grant funding results: Data slides

The sequence of diagrams below outlines the relationship between application rank within a panel, the percent rank score, and funding cutoffs. It is based solely on data from the Fall 2017 Project Grant competition and does not represent historical trends. As such, it should not be used to inform an applicant’s panel selection for future competitions. For further information, the complete results of the Fall 2017 competition are available online, along with a detailed explanation of how funding decisions were made.

Diagram 1: Application percent rank by panel

In order to make funding decisions, CIHR needs to be able to compare peer review results across panels of varying sizes. Scores for each application are converted to within-committee rankings, which are then used to calculate each application’s percent rank. The first-ranked application in every panel receives a percent rank of 100%, and the rest of the applicants spread down the scale. The diagram below shows the relationship between application rank within a panel and overall percent rank for those applications with a rank between 82% and 97% (i.e., those that fall around the overall funding cutoff for this competition). This diagram also illustrates the impact of having a different number of applications in each panel (i.e., the percent rank of applications in a panel with fewer applications overall will spread more widely across the scale).

Application percent rank by panel

Diagram 2: Percent rank cutoff by panel

Using the percent rank of applications allows CIHR to fund an approximately proportional number of applications across each panel. The number is approximate because the number of applications varies across panels. As the diagram below illustrates, the last application funded in any panel for the Fall 2017 competition had a higher percent rank than the first application not funded in any other panel.

Percent rank cutoff by panel

Diagram 3: Bridge grant for large grant

As noted in the detailed explanation, large grants are treated as their own cohort for the purposes of making decisions. In the Fall 2017 competition, there was one large grant above the percent rank cutoff for the competition overall (i.e., the percent rank score required to receive funding). The large grant envelope was exhausted, however, so this large grant received a bridge grant.

Bridge grant for large grant

Diagram 4: Early Career Investigator (ECI) equalization

Next, the success rate of early career investigators (ECIs) was equalized to ensure that the proportion of ECIs funded equaled the proportion of ECI applicants to the competition. There were 21 ECI applications funded through the equalization process. These applications fell below the percent rank cutoff—but were fully funded through the funds allotted for ECIs. As with the panels, the last ECI application funded had a higher percent rank than the first ECI application not funded.

ECI equalization

Diagram 5: Bridge grants

Finally, of the 33 bridge grants awarded for the Fall 2017 competition, 31 were based on the overall percent rank scores, 1 was awarded to a large grant (as noted in Diagram 3), and 1 was awarded through the Indigenous Health Research iterative review process. The funding decisions for bridge grants were made in the same way as with the panels, so the last bridge grant funded had a higher percent rank than the first application not funded.

Bridge grants

Diagram 6: Fall 2017 Project Grant funding decisions

The graph below ties all the funding decision data together. To see the data in a table format, click on the long description.

Fall 2017 Project Grant funding decisions

Date modified:

2018-03-07