Finalize Evaluations and Ratings as a Committee

Peer Review Committees (PRCs) are responsible for:
  • Evaluating applications
  • Rating applications so they can be ranked in order of priority for funding by CIHR
  • Recommending a budget to support the proposed research if the application is approved

For certain programs, PRC members meet face-to-face (in person or by teleconference) to discuss the competitive applications in order to finalize the evaluations and ratings as a committee. For other programs, the evaluations and ratings of the individual reviewers are compiled by CIHR staff and used to generate a rank-order list of all the applications in the committee without an actual meeting of the PRC members (referred to as a structured, remote review).

Face-to-face

For programs and funding opportunities with PRCs that meet face-to-face (either in person or by teleconference):

  • Members with a conflict of interest leave the room (or disconnect from the teleconference)
  • Assigned reviewers announce their initial ratings
  • Non-competitive applications are eliminated from the discussion based on Streamlining guidelines (when all reviewers are in agreement)
  • Assigned reviewers present assessments
  • If applicable, any External Reviewer assessments are read
  • A committee member presents any External Reviewer(s) assessment(s)
  • Reader comments/raises any issues
  • Chair leads discussion of all committee members
  • Scientific Officer reads the Scientific Officer notes of the discussion
  • Chair seeks a consensus rating from the two assigned reviewers; if a consensus cannot be reached, the mean value of the ratings of the two assigned reviewers is used
  • Committee members (except Chair and Scientific Officer) cast individual confidential votes (within ± 0.5 of the consensus rating)
  • The average of the confidential votes is the final rating assigned to the application
  • Community Reviewer (if present) provides a Review of Lay Abstracts
  • Appropriateness of the budget and the term of support are discussed
  • Budget and Term recommendations are made
  • Flagging of Grants occurs (if applicable) to address:
    • Eligibility of applicants
    • Ethics
    • Human pluripotent stem cell research
    • Budget justification
  • Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) may occasionally be flagged as being Under Continuing Review (UCR) when the peer review committee requires clarification on specific issues before the final rating can be assigned
  • If the PRC feels that any application has been treated inconsistently, an End of Meeting Review occurs to re-review the application(s); the procedure is:
    • Discussion
    • Consensus rating
    • Voting

To maintain an effective and high quality peer review system, all committee members participate in a final process review to discuss:

  • Effectiveness and functionality of the committee
  • Policy issues
  • Any concerns of committee members

CIHR staff records the feedback.

For more information, please see Grant Application Review Process: During the Meeting in the CIHR Peer Review Manual for Grant Applications.

For information about the roles and responsibilities of committee members, please consult the Peer Review Committee Members Role.

Structured, Remote Review

Certain programs, notably the Fellowship, Masters and Doctoral Research Award programs, use a structured remote review process that does not require a face-to-face meeting of the PRC members. For programs and funding opportunities with PRCs that use structured, remote review:

  • CIHR staff assigns each application to reviewers for evaluation
  • Reviewers submit their scores and reviews to CIHR staff using ResearchNet
  • CIHR staff compiles scores and determines if there are discrepancies
  • Reviewers re-review applications with scoring discrepancies
  • If there are scoring discrepancies after the second review, a third reviewer is assigned to the application and submits a review