Clarifying the Fall 2017 Project Grant funding results: Data slides

The sequence of diagrams below outlines the relationship between application rank within a panel, the percent rank score, and funding cutoffs. It is based solely on data from the Fall 2017 Project Grant competition and does not represent historical trends. As such, it should not be used to inform an applicant’s panel selection for future competitions. For further information, the complete results of the Fall 2017 competition are available online, along with a detailed explanation of how funding decisions were made.

Note: The data below does not include the Indigenous Health Research panel, which uses an iterative peer review model.

Diagram 1: Application percent rank by panel

In order to make funding decisions, CIHR needs to be able to compare peer review results across panels of varying sizes. Scores for each application are converted to within-committee rankings, which are then used to calculate each application’s percent rank. The first-ranked application in every panel receives a percent rank of 100%, and the rest of the applicants spread down the scale. The diagram below shows the relationship between application rank within a panel and overall percent rank for those applications with a rank between 82% and 97% (i.e., those that fall around the overall funding cutoff for this competition). This diagram also illustrates the impact of having a different number of applications in each panel (i.e., the percent rank of applications in a panel with fewer applications overall will spread more widely across the scale).

Note: Due to ties, some application ranks are equal and therefore some numbers do not appear in the diagrams (e.g., in the CSC panel two applications are tied in fourth and therefore there is no fifth ranked grant in this panel).

Application percent rank by panel

Diagram 2: Percent rank cutoff by panel

Using the percent rank of applications allows CIHR to fund an approximately proportional number of applications across each panel. The number is approximate because the number of applications varies across panels. As the diagram below illustrates, the last application funded in any panel for the Fall 2017 competition had a higher percent rank than the first application not funded in any other panel.

Percent rank cutoff by panel

Diagram 3: Bridge grant for large grant

As noted in the detailed explanation, large grants are treated as their own cohort for the purposes of making decisions. In the Fall 2017 competition, there was one large grant above the percent rank cutoff for the competition overall (i.e., the percent rank score required to receive funding). The large grant envelope was exhausted, however, so this large grant received a bridge grant.

Bridge grant for large grant

Diagram 4: Early Career Investigator (ECI) equalization

Next, the success rate of early career investigators (ECIs) was equalized to ensure that the proportion of ECIs funded equaled the proportion of ECI applicants to the competition. There were 21 ECI applications funded through the equalization process. These applications fell below the percent rank cutoff—but were fully funded through the funds allotted for ECIs. As with the panels, the last ECI application funded had a higher percent rank than the first ECI application not funded.

ECI equalization

Diagram 5: Bridge grants

Finally, of the 33 bridge grants awarded for the Fall 2017 competition, 31 were based on the overall percent rank scores, 1 was awarded to a large grant (as noted in Diagram 3), and 1 was awarded through the Indigenous Health Research iterative review process. The funding decisions for bridge grants were made in the same way as with the panels, so the last bridge grant funded had a higher percent rank than the first application not funded.

Note: Due to ties, not all bridge grants will be shown individually in the diagram.

Bridge grants

Diagram 6: Fall 2017 Project Grant funding decisions

The graph below ties all the funding decision data together. To see the data in a table format, click on the long description.

Fall 2017 Project Grant funding decisions

Long Description
Panel Applications Received Applications Funded Panel Success Rate Panel Percent Rank Cutoff Percent Rank of Bridge Grant Percent Rank of First Not Funded Large Bridge Grants (Decrease SR) ECIs Added (Increase SR) Ties at Cutoff (Increase SR) Additional Applications Funded
HLE 21 4 19.0% 90.00% 80.00% 0 1 0 1
GSH 24 3 12.5% 91.30% 86.96% 82.61% 0 0 0 0
CIC 26 4 15.4% 88.00% 84.00% 0 0 0 0
SDA 29 4 13.8% 89.29% 85.71% 0 0 0 0
G2 35 6 17.1% 88.24% 82.35% 0 0 1 1
CB2 38 5 13.2% 89.19% 86.49% 83.78% 0 0 0 0
MP2 38 5 13.2% 89.19% 86.49% 83.78% 0 0 0 0
MPI 38 5 13.2% 89.19% 86.49% 83.78% 0 0 0 0
E 39 5 12.8% 89.47% 86.84% 84.21% 0 0 0 0
GMX 39 7 17.9% 89.47% 81.58% 0 2 0 2
CP 40 6 15.0% 89.74% 84.62% 0 0 0 0
CMZ 42 7 16.7% 87.80% 82.93% 0 0 1 1
IT2 42 7 16.7% 87.80% 82.93% 0 1 0 1
MD2 42 7 16.7% 87.80% 82.93% 0 1 0 1
MID 42 6 14.3% 87.80% 85.37% 0 0 0 0
NSD 42 6 14.3% 90.24% 85.37% 0 0 0 0
IT 43 6 14.0% 88.10% 85.71% 0 0 0 0
CIB 44 8 18.2% 88.37% 81.40% 0 0 2 2
VV2 44 6 13.6% 88.37% 86.05% 83.72% 0 0 0 0
DEV 46 6 13.0% 88.89% 86.67% 84.44% 0 0 0 0
CSC 47 6 12.8% 89.13% 86.96% 84.78% 0 0 0 0
NSC 47 6 12.8% 89.13% 86.96% 84.78% 0 0 0 0
PB1 47 6 12.8% 89.13% 86.96% 84.78% 0 0 0 0
NSB 48 7 14.6% 87.23% 85.11% 0 0 0 0
BMB 50 8 16.0% 87.76% 83.67% 0 1 0 1
KTR 50 7 14.0% 87.76% 85.71% 0 0 0 0
PB2 50 7 14.0% 89.80% 85.71% 0 0 0 0
HS2 51 7 13.7% 88.00% 86.00% 84.00% 0 0 0 0
RC2 51 7 13.7% 88.00% 86.00% 84.00% 0 0 0 0
RC1 52 7 13.5% 88.24% 86.27% 84.31% 0 0 0 0
CID 53 8 15.1% 88.46% 86.54% 82.69% 0 1 0 1
PT 53 7 13.2% 88.46% 86.54% 84.62% 0 0 0 0
BSB 54 8 14.8% 88.68% 86.79% 83.02% 0 1 0 1
CM2 54 8 14.8% 88.68% 86.79% 83.02% 0 1 0 1
CSB 54 7 13.0% 88.68% 86.79% 83.02% 0 0 0 0
BMA 55 7 12.7% 88.89% 87.04% 85.19% 0 0 0 0
G 55 9 16.4% 88.89% 83.33% 0 1 1 2
VVP 56 8 14.3% 87.27% 85.45% 0 0 0 0
HS1 57 9 15.8% 87.50% 85.71% 0 1 0 1
BME 58 8 13.8% 87.72% 85.96% 84.21% 0 0 0 0
CSA 58 8 13.8% 87.72% 85.96% 84.21% 0 0 0 0
HPM 58 8 13.8% 87.72% 85.96% 84.21% 0 0 0 0
C2 60 8 13.3% 88.14% 86.44% 84.75% 0 0 0 0
CBM 60 8 13.3% 88.14% 86.44% 84.75% 0 0 0 0
CHI 61 10 16.4% 88.33% 85.00% 0 2 0 2
BCA 62 9 14.5% 88.52% 85.25% 0 1 0 1
BSA 62 9 14.5% 88.52% 86.89% 83.61% 0 1 0 1
BS2 63 10 15.9% 87.10% 83.87% 0 1 0 1
CT2 63 9 14.3% 87.10% 85.48% 0 0 0 0
NSA 63 8 12.7% 88.71% 87.10% 85.48% 1 0 0 -1
CPT 64 10 15.6% 87.30% 84.13% 0 1 0 1
HDK 64 9 14.1% 87.30% 85.71% 0 0 0 0
CBT 65 10 15.4% 87.50% 84.38% 0 0 1 1
MOV 65 10 15.4% 89.06% 85.94% 0 1 0 1
PS 65 9 13.8% 87.50% 85.94% 0 0 0 0
HS3 66 10 15.2% 87.69% 86.15% 81.54% 0 1 0 1
PH1 66 10 15.2% 87.69% 84.62% 0 0 1 1
DOL 68 9 13.2% 89.55% 86.57% 85.07% 0 0 0 0
PH2 68 11 16.2% 88.06% 83.58% 0 1 1 2
NUT 72 10 13.9% 87.32% 85.92% 0 0 0 0
MCC 75 11 14.7% 89.19% 86.49% 83.78% 0 1 0 1
BSC 76 10 13.2% 88.00% 86.67% 85.33% 0 0 0 0
RS 79 12 15.2% 87.18% 85.90% 0 1 0 1
CIA 80 12 15.0% 87.34% 84.81% 0 0 1 1
Date modified: