Table of Contents

Responsibilities of Reviewers
  Avoid Conflict of Interest
  Respect the Confidentiality of Applications
  Be Aware of the Reviewer Community's Scoring of the Benchmark Application

Reviewing the Assigned Applications
  Read the Applications
  Rate the Applications
  Provide Other Information for CIHR and Feedback to Applicants
  Send Review Results to CIHR via ResearchNet
  Be Prepared for a Re-Review Request from CIHR

Annex 1: The Benchmark Application
Annex 2: Criteria and Rating Scales
Annex 3: Calibrating Scores
Annex 4: Reviewer WorkSheet
  Guide to Locating Information
Annex 5: Examples of Electronic Forms via ResearchNet

Responsibilities of Reviewers

• Avoid conflict of interest;
• Respect the confidentiality of applications;
• Be aware of the reviewer community's scoring of the benchmark application;
• Review and rate each assigned application using the criteria provided by CIHR;
• Submit ratings and feedback to CIHR via ResearchNet by the deadline specified;
• Provide a re-review if requested by CIHR.

Avoid Conflict of Interest

• As soon as you receive the applications to be reviewed, look over the candidates' names, the names of their proposed supervisors and their institutions, and indicate using ResearchNet your ability to review each application that has been assigned to you.

You must not be involved in the review if the applicant or the proposed research supervisor:

• Is from your institution (unless they are located in another campus);
• Has collaborated with you within the last five years
• Has been supervised by you within the last ten years;
• Is a close personal friend or relative;
• Has major differences of opinion with you;
• If you could be affected financially from the outcome of the application; or
• Are for some other reason unable to provide an objective review.

If you would be in conflict of interest, or might be perceived to be in conflict of interest, notify CIHR immediately and the application will be assigned to another reviewer.

Respect the Confidentiality of Applications

Do not forward copies of applications or discuss them with others.

Be Aware of the Reviewer Community's Scoring of the Benchmark Application

Step 1: Rate the Benchmark Application

A benchmark application appears in Annex 1. If you have already rated it, go to Step 2. If not, read then rate it using the six criteria and the scales provided in Annex 2.

Step 2: Compare Your Ratings to the Pattern for the Reviewer Community

View your ratings in relation to those of the community by completing the table in Annex 3. In cases where your rating falls outside the normal range, revisit your assessment and consider the reasons given by other reviewers for their ratings.

Reviewing the Assigned Applications

Read the Applications

Read all of your assigned applications before rating any of them. As you examine each application, jot down notes to capture your impressions. The Reviewer Worksheet (Annex 4) provides a template that you could use. Note that the worksheet will not be filed with CIHR.

Be alert to unconscious bias related to gender, discipline or geographic location. Remember that:

• Career interruptions for child bearing and raising can influence opportunity for knowledge production, publications and related variables;
• Different disciplines and environments offer different opportunity for publication; and,
• The reputation of institutions should not affect your view of applicants or their research training environment.

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.

Rate the Applications

Examine each application in detail and rate it against each of the six criteria described in Annex 2,

Reviews for Fellowship applications are now submitted to CIHR via ResearchNet. The electronic rating forms are available to reviewers you once you log on to ResearchNet.

Provide Other Information for CIHR and Feedback to Applicants

Length of Term: If you think that the proposed duration for the training Fellowship 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.

Send Review Results to CIHR via ResearchNet

Please respect the deadline provided by CIHR by submitting your reviews via ResearchNet by the date specified via correspondance with CIHR staff responsible for the Fellowship program.

Be Prepared for a Re-Review Request from CIHR

When all scores are received, CIHR will calculate an average for each applicant. 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.

Annex 1: The Benchmark Application

Note to Reviewers

Information on a hypothetical candidate is presented as though it has been extracted for you from a CIHR application form by another reviewer.

The benchmark application presents information on a hypothetical candidate submitting an application to the Fall 2005 competition. It is intentionally generic; the candidate could be female or male, in any health research area, and training inside or outside Canada. Do not worry about this lack of specificity.

The information has been organized as follows:

A - Introduction to the Candidate
1. The Candidate's Plans
2. The Proposed Research Project
3. Honours, Awards and Academic Distinctions of the Candidate
4. The Candidate's Publications and Related Research Achievements
5. Characteristics and Abilities of the Candidate
6. Research Activity, Resources and Mentorship in the Training Environment.

A - Introduction to the Candidate

• The candidate holds a health professional degree and will complete a PhD by June 2006.
• The health professional degree was obtained in 1998. After a period of clinical work, the candidate entered a two-year Master's program, September 2000 to June 2002. The candidate then commenced a PhD program at a more research-intensive university.
• The candidate is planning postdoctoral work at a different research institution commencing July 2006.

1. The Candidate's Plans

• The candidate's training plans were logical and easy to follow. There was a lucid description of experiences that have contributed to development of an interest in health research.
• The candidate was introduced to research as a summer student during the final two years of their professional program. After graduation, exposure to practical challenges in clinical practice led to an interest in researching better ways of diagnosing and treating a particular syndrome. The candidate entered a Master's program. There they were strongly encouraged by mentors to subsequently prepare for a career as a clinician-researcher by enrolling in a PhD program at a research-intensive university. As a doctoral student, the candidate has found an important research topic, developed some original methodology and published early results.
• It is not entirely clear why the candidate has chosen to work with the Fellowship supervisor, but the fit of expertise seems appropriate.
• After two years of postdoctoral work outlined in the application, the candidate expects to take up a joint research and clinical appointment at a Canadian university and affiliated clinic. Tentative arrangements have been made for these post-training positions. After the postdoctoral period, the candidate will apply for a career award to enable a full-time effort in research complemented by relevant clinical work.

2. The Proposed Research Project for the Candidate

• The candidate's research project was appropriately presented in general language. When technical terms were introduced they were, with two exceptions, adequately explained. The principal research hypothesis was reasonably well articulated.
• The project appeared to fit well with the candidate's background. It could not be called a "stretch" project - one that would take the candidate into unfamiliar territory in which new skills and research strategies would be required. It appeared to be quite closely related to the research work for the PhD.
• Results will likely have an impact on future research in the area. There is also a high likelihood that results will be relevant to clinical practice.
• The project would probably be considered moderately innovative by others working in the area. The work is doable in the time frame as long as resources are available.
• There seems to be a good fit between the candidate's project and the supervisor's research program. However, the candidate's project would not be considered as a critical element of the supervisor's work.
• The overall training program for the candidate seems well balanced. In addition to working on the postdoctoral project, the candidate will be afforded opportunities to improve skills in supervision, reviewing and writing grant applications, teaching and administration.

3. Honours, Awards and Academic Distinctions of the Candidate

• As an undergraduate, the candidate received an award as runner-up in a competition for best summer student research presentation.
• Master's study was supported by an award from a provincial agency. The candidate is currently holding an award from a research charity for doctoral work.
• The candidate was part of a university rowing team that won a silver medal in the national competition in 2001. In 2002, the candidate was vice president external affairs of the university graduate students' association.
• The candidate's GPA rose steadily throughout their undergraduate program. The candidate made the dean's honour list in the final undergraduate year. Grades in Master's and PhD courses were a mixture of A, A-minus and B-plus.

4. The Candidate's Publications and Related Research Achievements

Journal Articles

• There were 11 papers in the candidate's list of publications: eight published articles, two in press and one submitted. For reference, the expected productivity for a soon-to-be PhD in this particular research area is six or seven publications.

#	Year	Position of candidate's name in the list of authors	Contribution of candidate to the publication	Impact of journal*	Comment
1	1998	Second of three authors	25%	Medium	From summer student work
2	1999	First of three authors	65%	Medium	From summer student work
3	2000	First of two authors	60%	Low	Case study from clinical work
4	2002	Third of four authors	20%	Medium	From Master's work
5	2002	Second of three authors	40%	High	Some overlap with article 4
6	2003	Second of five authors	20%	Medium	From Master's
7	2004	Sole author	100%	Low	Review article. From PhD work
8	2004	First of two authors	85%	Medium	From PhD
9	2005	First of three authors	75%	High	In press
10	2005	Second of five authors	30%	Medium	In press
11		First of two authors	75%	High	Submitted

* Field normalized journal impact

Related Research Achievements

• The candidate lists nine conference presentations. For reference, the expected number of presentations for someone with the experience of the candidate in this area is seven or eight. The candidate was specifically invited to present at a conference hosted by their university. Three of the nine presentations were at international conferences.
• The titles of the conference presentations suggest some overlap in content. It is reasonable to conclude that the nine presentations reflect four research themes.
• The candidate and PhD supervisor have applied for a patent on the research instrument that they jointly developed.

5. Characteristics and Abilities of the Candidate

• The candidate's characteristics and abilities were described by three sponsors:
  1) PhD supervisor, 2002 to present
  2) Master's degree supervisor, 2000-2002
  3) Clinical supervisor, 1999.
• The sponsors rated variables on a scale of 0 to 4.9. The results were:

Characteristic or ability of the candidate	Sponsor #1	Sponsor #2	Sponsor #3	Mean
Independence and critical thought	4.2	4.1	4.0	4.1
Energetic and focused pursuit of knowledge	4.5	4.4	4.3	4.4
Creativity	4.1	3.8	4.0	4.0
Mean	4.3	4.1	4.2	4.2

Rating benchmarks were:

3.0 to 3.4	Above average in strength and frequency of demonstration
3.5 to 3.9	Strong and frequently demonstrated
4.0 to 4.4	Very strong and very frequently demonstrated
4.5 to 4.9	Exceptionally strong and always demonstrated

Summaries of comments from the sponsors follow in the next three tables.

From the report by the candidate's PhD supervisor, 2002 to present

Characteristic or ability of the candidate	Summary of sponsor's comments	Sponsor's rating
Potential for independent research	Very positive. Indicated that in fifteen years of supervising students only two gave stronger signs of researcher potential.	n/a
Independence and capacity to think critically	Gave good examples of situations where the candidate demonstrated independence and initiative. There was no specific example of a situation where the candidate demonstrated very strong critical thinking.	4.2
Capacity for energetic and focused pursuit of knowledge	Emphasized the candidate's organizational skills and their ability to motivate and work with others. Described the candidate as "someone who always meets their commitments".	4.5
Capacity for creative thinking	Mentioned the candidate's key role in the development of a novel research instrument.	4.1
Most significant achievement	Referred again to the design and development of the research methodology and instrument.	n/a

From the report by the candidate's Master's degree supervisor, 2000-2002

Characteristic or ability of the candidate	Summary of sponsor's comments	Sponsor's rating
Potential for independent research	Very favourable. Has kept in touch with the candidate and is following their career development with interest.	n/a
Independence and capacity to think critically	Cited the candidate's exceptionally well-written and strongly argued proposal for a Master's research project. Also mentioned leadership qualities.	4.1
Capacity for energetic and focused pursuit of knowledge	Mentioned the candidate's ability to write papers and meet deadlines while remaining actively involved in rowing and graduate student affairs.	4.4
Capacity for creative thinking	Indicated that the Master's research topic, although important, may not have allowed the candidate to fully demonstrate their creativity.	3.8
Most significant achievement	Described the question and answer session after a conference presentation in which it was clear that the candidate's ideas were influencing the thinking of the leading researchers in the area.	n/a

From the report of the candidate's clinical supervisor, 1999.

Characteristic or ability of the candidate	Summary of sponsor's comments	Sponsor's rating
Potential for independent research	Supervised the candidate's clinical work in 1999. Felt unable to judge research potential but described the candidate as an "evidence-based" clinician.	n/a
Independence and capacity to think critically	Wrote of the candidate's ability to probe beyond the obvious diagnosis, always exploring the possibility of multiple causes and the full range of treatment options.	4.0
Capacity for energetic and focused pursuit of knowledge	Described the candidate as "tireless, determined, and one of the best young clinicians I have ever encountered". Mentioned that the candidate had helped prepare a case study for publication.	4.3
Capacity for creative thinking	Gave as an example a situation in which the candidate organized a team of specialists to provide around-the-clock care for a particular patient.	4.0
Most significant achievement	Mentioned that the candidate had organized a music program in which volunteers facilitated concerts by patients.	n/a

6. Research Activity, Resources and Mentorship in the Training Environment

• The postdoctoral research supervisor has been a principal investigator since 1982. The supervisor holds a research chair and received a national award for exceptional research achievement in 2001.
• The supervisor has authored or co-authored an average of four papers per year over the last five years. For reference, the usual productivity for researchers in this area is estimated at 3.8 papers. The supervisor is engaged in both national and international collaborations.
• The supervisor is the principal investigator for a national agency grant and a grant from a health charity. Co-investigator status is indicated for one grant from an agency outside the country.
• The candidate will be provided with an office (shared with one other person), other necessary research space, a computer, a shared printer and an allowance for travel to meetings. It was not clear how much grant funding would be devoted to the candidate's project.
• The supervisor is currently mentoring three people: a health professional in a Master's program, a PhD student and a Master's student. They will be collaborating with a visiting scientist.
• A review of the authorship of the publications listed by the supervisor suggests that trainees are given an opportunity to lead or participate in the production of papers.
• The following table indicates the current activity of former trainees who moved on over the last five years. It does not include seven summer students trained during that period.

Trainee	Period	Current position
Postdoctoral fellow	1999-2002	Public servant (Ministry of Health)
Master's student	1999-2001	Postdoctoral fellow
Postdoctoral fellow	2001-2003	Assistant professor
PhD student	2000-2004	Self-employed
Master's student	2000-2003	PhD student
PhD student	2002-2005	Volunteer in an international aid program

Annex 2: Criteria and Rating Scales

The Annex contains:

A - An Overview of the Six Selection Criteria
1. Evaluating the Candidate's Plans
2. Evaluating the Proposed Research Project
3. Evaluating the Honours, Awards and Academic Distinctions of the Candidate
4. Evaluating the Candidate's Publications and Related Research Achievement
5. Evaluating the Characteristics and Abilities of the Candidate
6. Evaluating the Research Activity, Resources and Mentorship in the Training Environment.

A - Overview of the Six Selection Criteria

Fellowship selection criteria and weights are based on studies of the predictors of post-training research activity. They have been fine-tuned through two surveys of Fellowship reviewers.

The raw scores that you submit for each criterion on the 0 to 4.9 scale will be weighted automatically by CIHR in the calculation of an overall score.

The Six Criteria and their Weights in the Overall Score:

Criterion	Weight for Post-PhD Candidates1
Candidate data
Candidate's plans (Training expectations)	10%	60%
Proposed research project	10%
Honours, awards and academic distinction *	5%
Publications and related research achievements **	35%
Assessments by Sponsors
Characteristics and abilities of the candidate	20%	20%
Fellowship Training Environment
Research activity, resources and mentorship	20%	20%
	100%	100%

¹ Includes health professionals who hold a PhD degree.

There are slight differences in the weighting of criteria for post-PhD Fellowship candidates and other candidates:
* Honours, Awards and Academic Achievements carry a weight of 15% for other candidates.
** Publications and related research achievements carry a 25% weigh for other candidates.

1. Evaluating the Candidate's Plans

10% weight for all candidates

Working Definition
A description of the applicant's career intentions and proposal for achieving them.

What to Look For
Clarity and logic in the explanation of the candidate's plans for a research career and the relevance of the proposed training.

Rating Range	Benchmark
4.5 to 4.9	Faultless depiction of research career intentions and relevance of the proposed training. Ideal career path.
4.0 to 4.4	Clear, convincing depiction of research career intentions and relevance of the proposed training. Highly appropriate career path.
3.5 to 3.9	Very good depiction of research career intentions and relevance of the proposed training. Logical career path.
3.0 to 3.4	Reasonable depiction of research career intentions and relevance of the proposed training. Suitable career path.
2.0 to 2.9	Mediocre
1.0 to 1.9	Weak
0	Not acceptable

2. Evaluating the Proposed Research Project

10% weight for all candidates

Working Definition
A carefully planned, systematic study aimed at clearly answering a question in health research.

What to Look For
The ideal project is one that is best for the candidate given their education, experience and interests. It is the right balance of challenge, importance of the research question and feasibility in relation to the candidate's experience and training.

Bear in mind that it is not the project per se that is being assessed. It is the project as an integral part of the candidate's development as a researcher.

Rating Range	Benchmark
4.5 to 4.9	Extraordinary optimization of: challenge to the candidate, scientific importance and feasibility of completion during the Fellowship period. An ideal project that is faultlessly outlined
4.0 to 4.4	Excellent optimization of: challenge, importance and feasibility. A highly suitable project that was superbly outlined.
3.5 to 3.9	Strong optimization of: challenge, importance, and feasibility. A very suitable project that was very clearly outlined.
3.0 to 3.4	Good optimization of challenge, scientific importance and feasibility. A suitable project that was well outlined.
2.0 to 2.9	Mediocre
1.0 to 1.9	Below average
0 to 0.9	Not acceptable

3. Evaluating the Honours, Awards and Academic Distinction of the Candidate

5% Weight for Post-PhD applications, 15% for Others

Working Definition
Official recognition or prizes signifying special qualities of the recipient. Includes accomplishments in terms of formal education and scholarship.

What to Look For
In assessing this variable and other achievements of the candidate, it is essential that you take into consideration the career path that they have followed to date. Assess the number, importance and breadth of the candidate's special distinctions relative to their education, training and work experience. Note relevance to research and whether the recognition is regional, national or international. Note the length of time required to complete academic programs and any indications of special academic distinction.

Rating Range	Benchmark
4.5 to 4.9	Extraordinary All aspects of the candidate's distinctions (their number, importance and breadth) indicate recognition of a very rarely encountered level of talent.
4.0 to 4.4	Excellent Several aspects of the candidate's distinctions (their number, importance or depth) indicate recognition of superb talent.
3.5 to 3.9	Very Good At least one aspect of the candidate's distinctions (their number, importance or depth) indicates recognition of a talent.
3.0 to 3.4	Good The candidate's distinctions indicate an above-average performance.
2.0 to 2.9	Mediocre
1.0 to 1.9	Below average
0 to 0.9	Not acceptable

4. Evaluating the Publications and Related Research Achievements of the Candidate

35% Weight for Post-PhD applicants; 25% for Others

Working Definition
Articles, chapters or books published (particularly peer-reviewed) as well as conference presentations, abstracts and evidence of practical impact such as patents or copyrights.

What to Look For
Evidence of achievement in research relative to opportunity to date. Bear in mind that opportunity to publish may vary according to research discipline and life course (e.g., time spent raising children).

For publications, observe the number of co-authors and the position of the candidate's name in the authors list. Note the candidate's role in publications and their estimated percent contribution to the work.

Try to get a sense of the entire body of work and its likely impact. Note the publication dates and relate them to the candidate's education and training. Consider the list of abstracts as an indication of conference presentation activity. Note the candidate's other professional activities. Consider any patents or copyrights to which the candidate contributed.

Rating Range	Benchmark
4.5 to 4.9	Brilliant All aspects of the candidate's publications and related research achievements (number, likely impact and breadth) indicate an extraordinarily productive and creative individual.
4.0 to 4.4	Excellent Several aspects of the candidate's publications and related research achievements (number, likely impact or breadth) indicate excellent productivity and creativity.
3.5 to 3.9	Strong At least one aspect of the candidate's publications and related achievements (number, likely impact or breadth) indicate very good productivity or creativity.
3.0 to 3.4	Good There is evidence of greater than expected involvement in publication and related research activities.
2.0 to 2.9	Mediocre
1.0 to 1.9	Below average
0 to 0.9	Not acceptable

5. Evaluating the Characteristics and Abilities of the Candidate

20% weight for all candidates

Working Definition
A perspective on the candidate provided by persons who are familiar with her/his characteristics and abilities.

What to Look For
Evidence from the sponsors that the candidate exhibits the characteristics and skills that correlate with career research achievement. Examine the sponsor's scores, recognizing that high scores are common while low scores are not. Read the supporting text carefully, taking note of the extent to which they justify the scores.

Look particularly for indications that the sponsors perceive the candidate as an investigative type, that is, someone whose thinking is critical, questioning, original and independent.

Look also for indications that the sponsors perceive the candidate as both energetic and capable of being highly focused.

If the candidate has had an opportunity to conduct research, look for mention of creativity in setting research goals, designing experiments, developing new methodologies, interpreting findings and presenting results in writing.

Rating Range	Benchmark
4.5 to 4.9	Extraordinary An outstandingly critical, original and independent thinker. Exceptionally focused, energetic and creative. An ideal role model for others.
4.0 to 4.4	First-Rate A highly critical, original and independent thinker. Very focused, energetic and creative. Excellent potential for future research leadership.
3.5 to 3.9	Strong Clearly a critical, original and independent thinker. Definitely focused, energetic and creative. Very good potential for success as an independent researcher.
3.0 to 3.4	Good Appears to be a critical, original and independent thinker. Seems to be focused, energetic and creative. Above average potential for a productive career in research.
2.0 to 2.9	Mediocre
1.0 to 1.9	Below average
0 to 0.9	Not acceptable

6. Evaluating the Research Activity, Resources and Mentorship in the Fellowship Training Environment

20% weight for all candidates

Working Definition
Elements of the research milieu that will contribute directly or indirectly to the quality of the candidate's research training experience.

What to Look For
Review information on the education, research experience, qualifications, honours and awards of the Fellowship supervisor. Examine the supervisor's publication record to get a sense of productivity, impact and collaboration.

Determine the space, facilities and personnel support available. Review the information on grants currently held, noting the extent to which the supervisor was "principal or co-applicant" for the funds. Get a sense of the resources available and the overall level of activity.

Review the supervisor's training record. Note for each person listed: the level of training, length of time with the supervisor, degree received (if applicable) and current position. Your assessment should take into consideration the career stage and discipline of the supervisor. Your expectations of mentoring by a recently-established investigator should differ from your expectations of mentoring by a long-established researcher.

Rating Range	Benchmark
4.5 to 4.9	Exceptional A vibrant, world-class research environment. Outstanding availability of research resources. Superb mentorship.
4.0 to 4.4	Excellent A highly active research environment. Excellent availability of research resources First-rate mentorship.
3.5 to 3.9	Strong A very active research environment. Very good availability of research resources. Strong mentorship.
3.0 to 3.4	Good An active research environment. Sufficient research resources available. Appropriate mentorship.
2.0 to 2.9	Mediocre
1.0 to 1.9	Below average
0 to 0.9	Not acceptable

Annex 3: Calibrating Scores

Position your scores relative to those of the reviewer community

For each criterion circle the range of scores that includes your rating for the benchmark application

Criterion	Range of Ratings of the Benchmark Application
	Low	Normal Ranges A large majority of reviewers rated the application in these ranges		High
Candidate's Plans	< 3.9	3.9 - 4.0	4.1 - 4.3	> 4.3
Proposed Research Project	< 3.6	3.6 - 3.8	3.9 - 4.1	> 4.1
Honours, Awards and Academic Distinctions	< 3.5	3.5 - 3.8	3.9- 4.1	> 4.1
Publications and Related Research Achievements	< 4.0	4.0 - 4.2	4.3 - 4.5	> 4.5
Characteristics and Abilities of the Candidate	< 4.0	4.0 - 4.1	4.2 - 4.3	> 4.3
Research Activity, Resources and Mentorship in the Training Environment	< 3.7	3.7 - 3.9	4.0 - 4.3	> 4.3
	Low	Normal Ranges (The mean rating lay between the italicized numbers)		High

Understanding Differences

For criteria on which your rating was Low or High relative to most other reviewers you should reread the benchmark application and then review the rating scale.

If after reviewing your score you still see no reason for shifting it into the normal range, consider the reasons why other reviewers did not give a higher or lower rating to the benchmark application.

Criterion	Reviewers' Reasons for Not Giving a Higher Rating
Candidate's Plans	Lack of solid justification for choosing the supervisor. No clear indication of what the candidate expects to gain that will enhance their training. No clear idea of how this training will contribute to achieving the future goals.
Proposed Research Project	The candidate is continuing along the same lines of research as previously investigated - challenges not high enough. Unlikely to gain new skills. Project appears only moderately innovative A little unclear as to how much time will be spent in teaching - may be involved in too many non-research activities Since the project is not a main area of research for the proposed supervisor the candidate may have difficulty getting advice if they run into problems.
Honours, Awards and Academic Distinctions	Research awards were local or charity foundation-based and therefore not as competitive as, say, national or international awards Not many awards or distinctions Other awards such as oral or poster presentation awards from international conferences would have been an asset. GPA was very good, but not in the excellent range
Publications and Related Research Achievements	Although the candidate has 10 published and one submitted paper, they are the first author on five (one is a review article and none are from the MSc) - and the impact could be higher. Ranking would increase following acceptance of the submitted manuscript. Only one high impact article as first author. Quality of publications is generally low to medium with only two published in high end journals (plus one submitted, but this could end up in a lower end journal). One is a review article and another is a case report. On an annual basis, productivity seems good but is not in my opinion exceptional.
Characteristics and Abilities of the Candidate	I ranked the candidate slightly lower than the mean rating from the sponsors because critical thinking and creativity were less strong than other qualities. Although sponsors comments were positive, nothing indicated a very high enthusiasm for the candidate. Not described as a future leader with exceptional qualities; not viewed as a future star. The 3.8 for creativity (sponsor #2) was a red flag. Scores were a bit inflated, based on the written comments. The clinical supervisor did not justify ratings very well.
Research Activity, Resources and Mentorship in the Training Environment	Productivity of principal investigator - good but not remarkable. Small group. Funding OK - but not more. Nothing exciting. Maybe the candidate has chosen the research topic more than the environment. One concern is the lack of additional personnel at a level the same as or higher then the candidate - people who could assist in the training. It is unclear how much infrastructure and funds will be directly available for the candidate's proposed training. The number of publications per year and number of trainees in the lab are strong but not clearly excellent. Funding is in very good range but not higher. One of the recent postdoctoral Fellows has left research altogether.

Criterion	Reviewers' Reasons for Not Giving a Lower Rating
Candidate's Plans	Post-training plans and goals are in place - the candidate plans to pursue an academic research career. Excellent path to clinician-scientist, including Master's and PhD. Clear and logical plans; early interest in research that has been fostered and nurtured. Good description of the way that the past training has influenced the current decisions - solid game plan.
Proposed Research Project	The project was well presented and feasible and would significantly contribute to its field. Excellent fit with past training and research interests. Potential impact on field and clinical relevance. Can be accomplished in time allotted. The research hypothesis and summary of the project were well articulated. Opportunity to acquire skills needed by an independent investigator. Project is the candidate's own - good start for own program.
Honours, Awards and Academic Distinctions	Already holds two competitive academic awards for graduate training. The number of awards was very good to excellent. The achievements in rowing and involvement in student leadership were excellent - accomplished at the same time as research and study. Made the Dean's list one year. Runner-up for research prize. Consistently improving throughout academic career. Achievements indicate a well-balanced and capable individual. Leadership skills, external interests - marks in grad school are not relevant for me.
Publications and Related Research Achievements	Publication record shows overall good productivity. The impact factors of more recent papers are higher suggesting more innovative work being done as the candidate progresses. Four papers during PhD, three as first author, one in high impact journal (not including the paper submitted). The filing of a patent application is a positive achievement. Consistent effort and productivity. More presentations than average and three at international venues.
Characteristics and Abilities of the Candidate	Reports state the candidate is strong and has good potential; they indicate well-roundedness as a clinician and researcher. Sponsors highlight the candidate's work ethic; past accomplishments regarding design and development suggest ability to direct research independently. PhD supervisor puts in top five; leadership qualities - influenced the thinking of others. The examples provided by sponsors to back up their ratings were convincing. The 3.8 score by Sponsor #2 has a reasonable explanation. Energetic and continually developing. Ability to be involved in sport and administration (as well as research) shows a high degree of organization.
Research Activity, Resources and Mentorship in the Training Environment	Supervisor has been recognized by peers and holds a research chair and a national research award. Supervisor has a decent record: mentorship, publication frequency. Mentor has more than 20 years experience as a principal investigator. A reasonable proportion of trainees have gone on to careers in research. Supervisor has international recognition. Environment looks solid with adequate resources.

Annex 4: Reviewer WorkSheet

This template is strictly for your working notes and will not be filed with CIHR.

Name of Applicant
Application Number
Background Information on the Candidate Refer to the CV Module of the Candidate	Degrees held or in progress: Time for completion of degree programs: Research experience:
Candidate's Plans Refer to the Training Expectations in the CIHR Training Module	Link between proposed and prior training: Career goals:
Proposed Research Project Refer to the Abstract and the Proposed Training Program in the CIHR Training Module	Project: Expected duration of training: Suitability of project for applicant's career:
Honours, Awards and Academic Distinction Refer to the CV Module of the Candidate and Refer to university transcripts
Publications and related research activity Refer to the CV Module of the Candidate	Papers: Presentations: Other: Candidate's role:
Characteristics and Abilities of the Candidate Refer to sponsors' assessments	Sponsor: Relationship to candidate: Notes:
	Sponsor: Relationship to candidate: Notes:
	Sponsor: Relationship to candidate: Notes:
Research Activity in the proposed Fellowship Training Environment Refer to the CV Module(s) of the proposed supervisor(s)	Name of proposed supervisor: Qualifications: Publication activity: Impact: Collaborators:
Resources Available in the proposed Fellowship training environment Refer to the CV Module(s) of the proposed supervisor(s)	Space, facilities and personnel support available (refer to page 8 of CIHR Training Module): Research funding available to the supervisor:Other key resources:
Mentorship record in the proposed Fellowship training environment Refer to the CV Module(s) of the proposed supervisor(s)	Trainees in the last five years - level and outcome:
General Notes on the Application	Overall impression:

Guide to Locating Information

Review Criterion	Where to Find Information
	Application Module	Sections
Candidate's Plans	Training Module	Training Expectations Degrees or Qualifications Sought Activity other than Research Reason for Selecting a Foreign Training Environment (if applicable)
Candidate's Research Project	Training Module	Project (abstract) Project (Title) Summary of Research Project
Candidate's Honours, Awards and Academic Distinction	Applicant's CV module	The "Distinctions" section should list any honours and awards Academic transcripts
Candidates's Publications and Related Research Achievements	Applicant's CV module	Publications table Number and type of publications Invited presentations List of publications Other professional activities Patents and copyrights
Candidate's Characteristics and Abilities	Sponsors' assessments
Research Activity, Resources and Mentorship in the Fellowship Training Environment	Training module:	Space, facilities and personnel support available
	Fellowship Supervisor's CV module:	Information on the research activity of the proposed supervisor: publications; other professional activities; patents and copyrights; Number of current trainees Funds currently held Supervisory experience

Annex 5: Examples of Electronic Forms via ResearchNet

- Form for Reporting Special Issues with an Application [ PDF (15.97 KB) | Help ]
- Form for Providing Feedback to Candidates [ PDF (16.94 KB) | Help ]