You must not be involved in the review if the applicant or the proposed research supervisor:
If you would be in conflict of interest, or might be perceived to be in conflict of interest, notify CIHR immediately (via ResearchNet) and the application will be assigned to another reviewer.
Do not forward copies of applications or discuss them with others.
Read all of your assigned applications before rating any of them. As you examine each application, jot down notes to capture your impressions. Please do not forward copies (paper or electronic) of these notes to CIHR.
Be alert to unconscious bias related to gender, discipline or geographic location. Remember that:
You are free to consult published lists of journal impact factors when assessing the candidate's research accomplishments. Note however that journal impact factors vary from one discipline to another and that they do not necessarily indicate the quality of individual articles.
Examine each application in detail and rate it against each of the three criteria described in Annex 1. Use the rating scales and notes to reviewers described in Annex 2 to help in determining an appropriate rating for each criterion.
Please note that only applications rated 3.5 or higher are eligible for CIHR funding. The range 3.0 to 3.4 should be used for applications which, while rated as good, are not considered to be a high priority for CIHR funding. Please note that applications rated 3.0 to 3.4 are not eligible for CIHR funds, including those from partnership programs.
Reviews and ratings for CIHR Doctoral Research Award applications are submitted to CIHR via ResearchNet. The electronic rating forms are available to reviewers when they access ResearchNet.
Length of Term: If you think that the proposed duration for the doctoral research award award is too long or too short, indicate the length that you recommend.
Human Stem Cell Research: Indicate if the candidate's research involves human stem cells.
Other Comments for CIHR: Mention any ethical issues, et cetera.
Feedback for the Applicant: Prepare brief comments on the application for transmittal to the candidate by CIHR via ResearchNet after the competition. Carefully avoid language that might be construed as sarcastic, flippant, arrogant, or inappropriate in any way. Cover both strengths and weaknesses, particularly those that could be realistically addressed by the applicant.
Please respect the deadline provided by CIHR by submitting your reviews and ratings via ResearchNet by the date specified via correspondance with CIHR staff responsible for the Doctoral Research Awards program.
When all scores are received, CIHR will calculate an average for each application. CIHR will then identify applications which are at risk of an unfair decision because of a wide spread between the two reviewers' ratings. In such cases, CIHR will ask both reviewers to reconsider their initial assessment and resubmit scores. Usually this second review will reduce the gap between scores to an acceptable size. If it does not, CIHR will obtain a third review.
Just in case you are asked to do a re-review, keep the applications and your working notes on file until competition results have been announced.
Overview of the Three Selection Criteria for CIHR Doctoral Research Awards
The raw scores that you submit via ResearchNet for each criterion on the 0 to 4.9 scale will be weighted automatically by CIHR in the calculation of an overall score.
The Three Criteria and their Weights in the Overall Score:
|
Criterion |
Weights for each criterion | |
|---|---|---|
|
Achievements and Activities of the Candidate | ||
|
Publication Activity |
10 % |
35 % |
|
Other Research Activity |
10 % | |
|
Academic Performance |
15 % | |
|
Characteristics and Abilities of the Candidate | ||
|
Critical thinking |
40 % |
40 % |
|
The Research Training Environment | ||
|
Training program for the candidate |
10 % |
25 % |
|
Scientific Activity |
5 % | |
|
Research resources |
5 % | |
|
Training record |
5 % | |
|
|
100% |
100% |
| Variable Assessed | Information Source | Rating Scale | Notes to Reviewers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Achievements and Activities of the Candidate | |||
| Publication activity Review the list of articles and other publications produced by the candidate. Consider presentations as other research activity (see below). |
Common CV completed by the candidate | 4.5 - 4.9 outstanding 4.0 - 4.4 excellent 3.5 - 3.9 very good 3.0 - 3.4 good 2.0 - 2.9 average 1.0 - 1.9 below average 0 not acceptable |
Assess the publication activity of the candidate relative to your expectations of someone with their academic experience. Consider: breadth of science covered, the frequency of publication and the scientific impact of the journals involved. In considering the candidate's input to the publications, take into account the number of co-authors for each paper and the prominence of the candidate's name on the list of authors. |
| Other research activity Review information on presentations, research prizes and other indicators of the candidate's research productivity. |
Common CV completed by the candidate | 4.5 - 4.9 outstanding 4.0 - 4.4 excellent 3.5 - 3.9 very good 3.0 - 3.4 good 2.0 - 2.9 average 1.0 - 1.9 below average 0 not acceptable |
Assess other research activity of the candidate relative to your expectations of someone with their academic experience. Consider: breadth of science covered, size and importance of meetings involved, frequency of conference presentations and research honours or awards. |
| Academic performance Review undergraduate academic transcripts and, if available, graduate transcripts |
Academic transcripts of the candidate | 4.5 - 4.9 outstanding 4.0 - 4.4 excellent 3.5 - 3.9 very good 3.0 - 3.4 good 2.0 - 2.9 average 1.0 - 1.9 below average 0 not acceptable |
Consider:
|
| Characteristics and Abilities of the Candidate | |||
|
Critical thinking |
Sponsors' Assessments | 4.5 - 4.9 outstanding 4.0 - 4.4 excellent 3.5 - 3.9 very good 3.0 - 3.4 good 2.0 - 2.9 average 1.0 - 1.9 below average 0 not acceptable |
Assess the extent to which the box scores and narratives are consistent and provide a score based on your overall impression. |
| The Research Training Environment | |||
| Training program for the candidate Review the candidate's training expectations and proposed doctoral research program, including project, resources available and planned non-research activities. |
Training module completed by the candidate and/or supervisor(s) | 4.5 - 4.9 outstanding 4.0 - 4.4 excellent 3.5 - 3.9 very good 3.0 - 3.4 good 2.0 - 2.9 average 1.0 - 1.9 below average 0 not acceptable |
Most candidates will be conducting research outside your research specialty. From a non-specialist's perspective, assess the intellectual challenge and excitement of the research in which the candidate will be involved. Consider the extent to which the training program appears to fit with the candidate's training expectations and the resources available for the candidate's project. |
| Scientific activity Review the research supervisor's publication record, significant contributions to research, and honours or awards. |
CV module completed by the research supervisor(s) | 4.5 - 4.9 outstanding 4.0 - 4.4 excellent 3.5 - 3.9 very good 3.0 - 3.4 good 2.0 - 2.9 average 1.0 - 1.9 below average 0 not acceptable |
In assessing whether the scientific environment is one in which a doctoral student will be inspired and challenged, focus on the scientific productivity and impact of the research supervisor(s) as indicated by publications, presentations and research prizes or awards. Bear in mind that publication activity patterns vary among health science disciplines. |
| Research resources Review the research resources available in the laboratory in which the candidate will train. |
CV module completed by the research supervisor(s) | 4.5 - 4.9 outstanding 4.0 - 4.4 excellent 3.5 - 3.9 very good 3.0 - 3.4 good 2.0 - 2.9 average 1.0 - 1.9 below average 0 not acceptable |
In assessing the extent to which the level of research resources in the training environment will enhance the scientific development of the candidate, focus on the adequacy of peer-reviewed research funding secured by the research supervisor. Bear in mind that availability of funding varies among health science disciplines. |
| Training record Review the supervisory experience of the researcher under whom the candidate proposes to pursue doctoral studies. |
CV module completed by the research supervisor(s) | 4.5 - 4.9 outstanding 4.0 - 4.4 excellent 3.5 - 3.9 very good 3.0 - 3.4 good 2.0 - 2.9 average 1.0 - 1.9 below average 0 not acceptable |
Consider the number of master's students, doctoral students and postdoctoral fellows that the research supervisor has trained or is currently training. In assessing the likelihood that students will be inspired to continue on in research, consider any information on the subsequent positions of persons who trained with the research supervisor. Bear in mind that the opportunity to train students will vary with the length of time that has elapsed since the supervisor(s) completed his/her own research training. |
**Please note that only applications rated 3.5 or higher are eligible for CIHR funding. The range 3.0 to 3.4 should be used for applications which, while rated as good, are not considered to be a high priority for CIHR funding. Please note that applications rated 3.0 to 3.4 are not eligible for CIHR funds, including those from partnership programs
- Form for Reporting Special Issues with an Application [ PDF (12 KB) | Help ]
