Responsibilities of Reviewers
Avoid Conflict of Interest
Respect the Confidentiality of Applications
Reviewing the Assigned Applications
Read the Applications
Rate the Applications
Provide Other Information for CIHR and Feedback to Applicants
Send Review and Rating to CIHR via ResearchNet
Be Prepared for a Re-Review Request from CIHR
Annex 1: Criteria
Annex 2: Rating Scales and Notes to Reviewers
Annex 3: Examples of Electronic Forms Available via ResearchNet
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 Master's 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 master's 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 Master's 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 Master's 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 | ||
| Research Experience and Achievement |
15 % |
40 % |
| Academic Performance |
25 % | |
| Characteristics and Abilities of the Candidate | ||
| Critical thinking Independence Perseverance Originality Organizational skills Interest in discovery Communication skills |
40 % |
40 % |
| The Research Training Environment | ||
| Training program for the candidate |
20 % |
20 % |
|
100% |
100% | |
|
Variable Assessed |
Information Source |
Rating Scale |
Notes to Reviewers |
| Achievements and Activities of the Candidate | |||
|
Research Experience and Achievement Review information on the candidate's research experience (summer research projects, research honours and awards, etc.) and achievements such as conferences, presentations, research prizes or publications. |
Common CV completed by the candidate and 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 research activity and achievements of the candidate relative to your expectations of someone with their academic experience. Consider:
In considering the candidate's input to any publication, take into account the number of co-authors and the prominence of the candidate's name on the list of authors. |
|
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 Independence Perseverance Originality Organizational skills Interest in discovery Communication skills |
Sponsors' Assessments |
4.5 - 4.9 outstanding |
Assess the extent to which the box scores and narratives provided by the sponsors 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 master's research program, including project and planned non-research activities. |
Training module 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 |
The candidate's proposed research may be 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. |
** 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.
