CIHR Instructions for Internal Reviewers (IR): Unstructured Review

[ PDF (28.8 KB) ]

Internal Reviewers are committee members who attend the peer review committee meeting, normally in person but occasionally by teleconference. Applications are assigned to a minimum of two internal reviewers for assessment. They submit an in depth written review that is provided to the applicant and present their review at the committee meeting where they lead the discussion. They also participate in the discussion and rating of all other applications before the committee for which they are not in conflict.

Internal reviewers may also be assigned other applications as "readers". Readers are responsible only for reading an application and are not required to submit a written review; they serve as a discussant in the committee and aid in reaching a consensus rating. Please see CIHR Instructions for Readers.

  • Internal reviewers must agree to abide by CIHR's Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Policy through ResearchNet.
  • Conflicts of interest with applications and levels of reviewer expertise are declared on ResearchNet. This task should be completed in a timely manner. If you feel that your level of expertise is "low" or "not enough expertise" for a large number of applications, please discuss this with the Program Delivery Coordinator as soon as possible.
  • The primary tool for conducting peer review is ResearchNet. If you feel that accessing your assigned applications through ResearchNet is not sufficient and that you must use a portable storage device, please notify the program delivery coordinator. Paper copies of applications are no longer provided.
  • Applications must be treated as protected information. You must not divulge their contents to others, or use any information herein for any other purpose than peer review.
  • Ensure that all Peer Review materials you use are handled safely and disposed of according to the document "Guide on Handling Documents used in Peer Review".
  • Be familiar with CIHR policies and procedures posted on ResearchNet and on the Internet. It is also important to be familiar with the objectives of the funding opportunity (see Find Funding).
  • IRs provide written reports, participate in the rating of applications, and vote during the meeting.

Internal Reviewer Report

  • Purpose: to provide critical assessment of the application and constructive feedback to the applicant based on the objectives and evaluation criteria described in the funding opportunity.
  • The review should be clear and concise, typically two to three pages, providing objective and constructive feedback to the applicant.
  • The applicant will receive the review as you submit it. Do not include your score or identify yourself in the text of your review. Do not suggest an alternate Peer Review Committee.
  • For the evaluation criteria, please refer to the funding opportunity, the guide for reviewers and/or section 7.2 Evaluation Criteria in the CIHR Peer Review Manual for Grant Applications.
  • Post your review on ResearchNet or as otherwise specified, according to the deadlines provided with the applications usually one week before the committee meeting but no later than midnight before the committee meeting. Detailed instructions for posting your review can be found on the ResearchNet site on the Conduct Reviews page entitled "Get to know the Conduct Reviews task for Committee Members". Once the review is submitted as final you will be able to view reviews submitted by other IRs, however, you will no longer be able to modify it prior to the meeting. Following the meeting, you will have one week to directly upload your changes to ResearchNet.

The internal reviewer report should include the following:

  1. A brief synopsis of the proposal:
    • purpose of the proposal;
    • hypothesis to be tested, or the research questions to be answered;
    • objectives to be achieved and approach proposed; and
    • progress made to date.
  2. An assessment of the proposal, based on the evaluation criteria as presented in the funding opportunity details:
    • consider all factors and the strengths or weaknesses of the applications in relation to each criteria;
    • not all factors are necessarily important to each application;
    • emphasis may be placed on specific criteria in the funding opportunity details, in order to meet funding program objectives; consider this when formulating your rating; and
    • focus your comments on the factors most relevant to your rating.
  3. If applicable, comments on the budget requested and a formal recommendation, including clear and detailed reasons for any recommended budget cuts.
  4. If necessary, comments on issues that you feel should be flagged (see the Peer Review Manual for more information). These concerns should not influence the rating or budget recommendations, unless they bear on the scientific merit of the application.

Before the Committee Meeting, submit the following on ResearchNet:

  • reviews (internal reviewers only: reader does not submit reviews);
  • initial rating (you are not bound by the initial rating and can change this at any time); and
  • your assessment of overall quality (if applicable)

At the Committee Meeting (see Appendix)

  1. Presentation of reviews after all members in conflict have left the room:
    • Before the reviews are presented, the two internal reviewers announce their initial ratings and (if applicable) their overall assessment of quality ("top/bottom" group assessment), to determine if the application should be streamlined;
    • Do not present the entire report to the committee; rather, summarize key points and provide more detail during the discussion if required;
    • The first reviewer reads a brief synopsis of the proposal followed by the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal according to the evaluation criteria for the funding opportunity and comments on any issues to be flagged; and
    • The second reviewer follows, concentrating on points of agreement or disagreement, and elaborating points not addressed by the first reviewer. The second reviewer does not read his/her synopsis of the proposal.
  2. Rating of applications:
    • Following any other points from the reader and the discussion of the application by the whole committee, the Chair seeks a "consensus rating" from the two internal reviewers. The internal reviewers may revise their initial ratings as they see fit. If a consensus cannot be reached, the Chair declares the consensus score, usually by using the mean value of the revised respective scores after discussion (round up, if necessary, to obtain a single decimal point); and
    • All committee members, including the two internal reviewers but excluding the Chair and Scientific Officer, then cast individual confidential votes within ± 0.5 of the consensus rating. The internal reviewers are not bound to the consensus rating. The rating assigned to the proposal is the average of these confidential votes.

At the end of the Committee Meeting

  1. Participate as the committee re-reviews one or a small number of applications if the committee feels that any applications have been treated inconsistently.
  2. Participate in providing feedback to CIHR Staff regarding the effectiveness and functioning of the committee and provide a discussion of policy issues.