CIHR is focusing on continuing improvements to its peer review system
(Note: This page contains external hyperlinks. Our policy on external hyperlinks is located on our
Help with Accessibility and External Links page.)
CIHR is studying various elements of our peer review process and trends in peer review outcomes, to ensure and maintain our standards of excellence and equity. We have undertaken the following:
- Commissioned an independent study by Dr. Warren Thorngate, Carleton University, with the following 2 objectives: using a sample of CIHR files, 1) to explore the impact of group discussions and external reviews on the ratings applications received and 2) to explore any differences in adjudication processes and behaviors, and associated outcomes, between peer review committees (Dr. Thorngate's report);
- Undertaken internal analyses of our peer review and administrative processes as well as peer review outcomes and success rates to identify issues and potential improvements;
- Committed to take action to change any identified quality or equity issues;
- Participated in various workshops and consultations with health research partners including the Heart and Stroke Foundation, National Cancer Institute of Canada and others, on how to exchange best practices, increase coordination and collaboration, and improve the system;
- Improved our ability to publish statistics about CIHR's investments in research on a regular basis including trends on expenditures and success rates classified by such variables as: area of research, pillar (i.e. biomedical, clinical, health services and systems, and health of populations), research institution, region, and peer review committee. We are working to prepare these statistics for publication on our website.
Building on this work CIHR will:
- Continue its analysis and discussions on the peer review process and outcomes;
- Develop strategies to improve the overall system;
- Address any systemic issues that may have arisen during the transformation from the former MRC to CIHR with its broader mandate;
- Continue to work with partners to share ideas regarding efficiencies and innovations in the peer review system, including the exploration of joint peer review processes;
- Add community members on peer review committees, where additional perspectives add value to the evaluation of applications for funding
- Dedicate resources to continuous monitoring, innovations and improvements to the peer review system.
