Reviewer Quality Feedback Form
This copy of the Reviewer Quality Feedback Form and it's interpretation guidelines are provided as information only. If you are a Chair or Scientific Officer, you will receive details about how to complete and submit the information.
Interpretation guidelines for the Reviewer Feedback form categories
For Chairs and Scientific Officers
Category | Criteria Checklist | Type of Feedback | Examples |
---|---|---|---|
General Feedback |
|
||
Review Quality |
A high quality review adheres to the following three criteria:
|
Outstanding Contributor: Overall, the majority of reviews exceeded expectations. |
|
Needs Improvement: One or more instances in review(s) that did not meet a Review Quality criteria. |
|
||
Participation |
Note: Please do not flag individuals based on differing personalities, presentation styles/formats (e.g. participation via teleconference) and possible language barriers. |
Outstanding Contributor: Overall, the Reviewer's participation exceeded expectations. |
|
Needs Improvement: Overall, the Reviewer did not meet a participation criteria. |
|
For staff
Category | Criteria Checklist | Type of Feedback |
---|---|---|
Responsiveness |
Pre-meeting
|
Needs Improvement
Note: Please take into consideration any circumstances that you are aware of which may explain the late completion of a peer review task. |
Responsiveness |
Post-meeting
|
Needs Improvement
Note: Please take into consideration any circumstances that you are aware of which may explain a late completion of a peer review task. |
Staff Feedback (Voluntary) |
|
References
- CIHR Standards of Practice in Peer Review
- Review Quality Checklist
- Project Grant Program – Peer Review Manual
- Project Grant Program – Peer Review Process Learning Module
- Date modified: