Reviewer in Training Program

Notice: The Spring 2026 RiT application period is currently open until February 4, 2026.

Apply Now

To request a paper copy in English or French, or an alternate format of this page or documents referenced within it, please contact:

Officers are available Monday to Friday, 7:00 am to 8:00 pm ET.

Overview

The CIHR Reviewer in Training (RiT) Program runs twice a year during the Spring and Fall Project Grant Competitions. It offers Early Career Researchers (ECRs) a learning opportunity to gain a better understanding of the elements of high-quality review and the peer review process.

RiT applicants can select either the role of a Mentee or ECR Reviewer.

  • ECRs that want to gain exposure to CIHR's peer review process with the guidance of a Mentor can apply to the Mentee role.
  • ECRs who hold federal (or equivalent) funding and want to gain direct peer review experience can apply to the ECR Reviewer role.

Mentees

  • Participate in the Project Grant competition with the support of a Mentor;
  • Write practice reviews on up to three applications;
  • Attend the peer review meeting in full;
  • Present one review; and
  • Participate in the committee discussions (Mentees will have access to all applications but do not contribute to scoring and budget discussions).

ECR Reviewers

  • Participate in the same capacity as regular reviewers (without a Mentor);
  • Review a reduced number of applications (up to five);
  • Attend the peer review meeting in full;
  • Present their assigned applications later in the meeting; and
  • Participate in the committee discussions, including contributing to scoring and budget discussions.

The RiT Program is designed to accommodate two Mentees, and a minimum of one ECR Reviewer per Project committee. Unselected applicants may be contacted with an opportunity to participate in the subsequent RiT program (e.g. Fall 2026) should there be an available spot in one of their preferred committees during the next round.

Following completion of the RiT Program, ECRs who hold grant funding may be invited to join the College of Reviewers. Please note, participation in this program is not a prerequisite for becoming a CIHR peer reviewer. ECRs may also be invited to review for other programs within CIHR's Reviewer Pathway if they meet the expertise requirements and selection criteria.

Information for Mentee Applicants

Program Overview

Participants in the Mentee role are assigned up to three applications to review based on their self-declared ability to review. Each Mentee is assigned a Mentor who is available to provide advice throughout the review process and will provide feedback on the quality of their written reviews.

Mentees will attend the committee meeting in its entirety, where they will have an opportunity to present one review. They will not participate in the final scoring of any application, nor in the budget discussion.

Participants will receive an allowance of $50 per day to cover out-of-pocket expenses incurred while participating in these meetings.

Eligibility

All Mentee Applicants:

  • Must meet CIHR's definition of an ECR on the application deadline for the Project Grant Competition;
  • Must hold an independent research-related appointment at a CIHR eligible institution on the application deadline for the Project Grant Competition;
  • Must not have previously participated in the RiT Program; and
  • Must not have previously participated as a reviewer in the Project Grant competition.

Candidates who are submitting applications as a Nominated Principal Applicant (NPA) or Principal Applicant (PA) in the current Project Grant competition are eligible for this opportunity, however, they will not be selected for a committee to which they have applied or that is adjudicating their submission.

Review Quality Assurance

After participating in the committee meeting, the Chairs, Scientific Officers and CIHR staff will provide feedback on Mentees as part of the Reviewer Quality Assurance Process. Following completion of the RiT program, Mentees will receive a letter stating one of the following outcomes based on their Review Quality, Participation, and/or Responsiveness during the program:

  1. The Mentee met the expectations in all areas of the RiT Program, or
  2. The Mentee did not meet the criteria in one or more areas of the RiT Program, with specific feedback to promote continuous improvement in the identified area(s).

The purpose of all feedback is to help Mentees build on their experiences in the RiT Program using CIHR Standards of Practice for Peer Review, enabling them to apply their learning to future peer review opportunities.

Application Materials

The following items will be needed for a Mentee application:

  • Your CIHR PIN (if known);
  • A PDF of your CIHR Biosketch CV to be completed using the Canadian Common CV interface (draft CCVs are not accepted);
  • A letter from a CIHR eligible institution attesting:
    • that you meet CIHR's definition of Early Career Researcher;
    • that you hold an independent research-related appointment at the institution (letter must include institution name, your position title and start date); and
  • A ranked list of up to two peer review committees – for which you have the appropriate expertise to review and in which you would be comfortable participating.

Tips for Institution Letters

Letters of support must be recent, and repurposed letters such as job offer letters are not accepted. Letters should be dated and written on Institution letterhead. They should include the Institution's name, the applicant's position title with start date, and the signature block with contact details for the attester.

Example:

I am pleased to write this letter confirming that Dr. Lee meets the eligibility criteria to be considered for the CIHR Reviewer in Training Program. Dr. Lee meets CIHR's definition of an Early Career Researcher, being within five years of their first independent academic appointment which allows them to engage in independent research activities, supervise trainees, and publish research results.

Dr. Lee currently holds the position of Assistant Professor, Department of Biology at the University of Toronto with an appointment start date of September 1, 2025.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Resources

Mentee Guide

The College of Reviewers has developed a detailed Mentee Guide to help facilitate the mentorship process during the RiT Program. This guide is accessible online and will also be shared with Mentees prior to the committee meeting.

Mentee Information Session

Participating Mentees will be invited to attend a virtual information webinar that provides an overview of the program and what to expect in the role as Mentee. Further information will be communicated as Mentees are confirmed.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does CIHR select RiT Mentees?

Up to two RiT Mentee applicants are selected per Project Grant Program committee. Mentees are selected via lottery process for each of the peer review committees that were chosen during the time of application.

Who will be assigned as my Mentor, and what does the mentorship entail?

RiT Mentors tend to be Chairs and Scientific Officers of the committee due to their considerable experience in peer review, and to avoid conflict or bias. If this is not possible, an experienced reviewer may be asked to take on the role of Mentor. The Mentor will provide guidance on what the peer review process entails and can answer questions about review quality (i.e. addressing the criterion of appropriateness, robustness, and utility) for the Mentee's practice reviews. Please note that scientific opinions and/or the merit of an application should not be the focus of the discussion.

How do Mentees participate at the committee meeting?

Mentees should expect to present one of their practice reviews during the committee meeting and share an initial score at the same time as other assigned reviewers. For the remaining assigned applications, Mentees can participate in general committee discussion but will not present their review.

Each application is assigned to a minimum of two to three reviewers. In general, the sequence of steps for the review of an application begins with the assigned reviewers and assigned Mentee announcing their initial ratings. If an application is not streamlined, the committee discussion proceeds.

The primary reviewer leads with a brief synopsis (~2-5 minutes) of the proposal and their assessment, describing the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. Next, up two secondary reviewers will contribute points of agreement or disagreement with the other reviewers and elaborate on any points not already addressed. The Mentee will present between the two secondary reviewers. The Chair will then open the discussion to all committee members, followed by consensus ratings, final scores, budget and term discussions.

Mentees will be able to observe the discussions of consensus ratings, budget, and final scores for all applications, however, they are not permitted to participate in these aspects of the adjudication. Mentees are given access to all other applications in ResearchNet and are encouraged to actively participate in general discussion of all applications during the meeting. Additional information on how Peer Review Committee meetings unfold can be found in the Project Grant Program: Review Process.

How will Mentees know which application they will present?

CIHR staff will notify Mentees in advance which application they will present at the meeting. Usually this is a few days in advance, however, it may not be until the day of the meeting as is dependent on receiving reviews and scores of all applications prior to the meeting. It is therefore recommended that Mentees take the time to prepare themselves to be ready to present each of their reviews.

Will applicants be able to see the practice reviews written by RiT Mentees?

No, applicants will not receive Mentee practice reviews. Only the Mentor and CIHR Staff will have access to practice reviews. Please note that comments made by the Mentee during discussion may be captured in the Scientific Officer Notes and RiT Mentees must abide by Standards of Practice for Peer Review at all times.

Information for ECR Reviewer Applicants

Program Overview

Participants in the ECR Reviewer role are assigned up to five applications to review based on their self-declared ability to review. ECR Reviewers must submit their reviews in accordance with committee deadlines.

ECR Reviewers will attend the peer review meeting in its entirety, present their reviews, and participate in the committee meeting discussions including final consensus ratings, individual voting, and budget assessment. ECR Reviewers will present their assigned applications later in the meeting, and will have access to all of the supportive resources that CIHR provides to committee members.

Participants will receive an allowance of $50 per day to cover out-of-pocket expenses incurred while participating in these meetings.

Eligibility

All ECR-Reviewer Applicants:

  • Must meet CIHR's definition of an ECR on the application deadline for the Project Grant Competition;
  • Must hold an independent research-related appointment at a CIHR eligible institution on the application deadline for the Project Grant Competition;
  • Must have at least one recent federally funded peer reviewed research grant (or equivalent) as a Principal Investigator;
  • Must not have previously participated in the RiT Program as an ECR Reviewer; and
  • Must not have previously participated as a reviewer for the Project Grant competition.

Applicants who have previously participated as a Mentee, and now meet these criteria, are eligible to participate as an ECR Reviewer.

Candidates who are submitting applications as a Nominated Principal Applicant (NPA) or Principal Applicant (PA) in the current Project Grant competition are eligible for this opportunity, however, they will not be selected for a committee to which they have applied or that is adjudicating their submission.

Review Quality Assurance

After participating in the committee meeting, the Chairs, Scientific Officers and CIHR staff will provide feedback on ECR Reviewers using CIHR's standardized Reviewer Quality Feedback form. In certain cases, CIHR will implement strategies to best support ECR-Reviewers and promote continuous improvement by providing feedback on review quality, participation and responsiveness as well as directing reviewers to resources that outline the criteria of high-quality reviewer performance. Please see CIHR Standards of Practice for Peer Review for more information.

Application Materials

The following items will be needed for an ECR-Reviewer application:

  • Your CIHR PIN (if known);
  • A PDF of your CIHR Biosketch CV to be completed using the Canadian Common CV interface (draft CCVs are not accepted)
    • Details of one recent federally funded (or equivalent) peer reviewed grant that you hold as a Principal Investigator;
  • A letter from a CIHR eligible institution attesting:
    • that you meet CIHR's definition of Early Career Researcher;
    • that you hold an independent research-related appointment at the institution (letter must include institution name, your position title and start date); and
  • A ranked list of up to two peer review committees – for which you have the appropriate expertise to review and in which you would be comfortable participating.

Tips for Institution Letters

Letters of support must be recent, and repurposed letters such as job offer letters are not accepted. Letters should be dated and written on Institution letterhead. They should include the Institution's name, the applicant's position title with start date, and the signature block with contact details for the attester.

Example:

I am pleased to write this letter confirming that Dr. Lee meets the eligibility criteria to be considered for the CIHR Reviewer in Training Program. Dr. Lee meets CIHR's definition of an Early Career Researcher, being within five years of their first independent academic appointment which allows them to engage in independent research activities, supervise trainees, and publish research results.

Dr. Lee currently holds the position of Assistant Professor, Department of Biology at the University of Toronto with an appointment start date of September 1, 2025.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Resources

Frequently Asked Questions

How does CIHR select ECR-Reviewers?

At least one ECR-Reviewer will be selected per Project Grant Program committee based on the expertise and eligibility of the applicants. Additional ECR-Reviewers may also be invited if their expertise aligns with the reviewing needs of the committee.

How do ECR-Reviewers participate at the committee meeting?

ECR-Reviewers participate in the same capacity as other committee members, including consensus ratings, budget discussions, and providing final scores on the applications. They have a reduced number of applications to review (up to five) and are able to present their assigned applications later in the meeting. ECR-Reviewers also have access to all applications in ResearchNet and are encouraged to actively participate in all aspects of discussion for applications, not just those they were assigned to review.

How are applications presented during the meeting, and what can I expect in presenting my application?

Each application is assigned to a minimum of two to three reviewers that participate in the rating of applications and submit an in-depth written report that is provided to the applicant. As a courtesy, applications that include an ECR-Reviewer as one of the reviewer roles will be discussed later in the meeting schedule.

In general, the sequence of steps for the review of an application begins with the assigned reviewers announcing their initial ratings. If an application is not streamlined, the committee discussion proceeds.

The primary reviewer leads with a brief synopsis (~2-5 minutes) of the proposal and their assessment, describing the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. Next, up to two secondary reviewers will contribute points of agreement or disagreement with the other reviewers and elaborate on any points not already addressed.

The Chair will then open the discussion to all committee members, followed by consensus ratings, final scores, budget and term discussions. Additional information on how Peer Review Committee meetings unfold can be found in the Peer Review Manual – Project.

Will applicants see the reviews written by ECR-Reviewers?

Yes, when applicants receive the Notice of Recommendation, they also receive copies of all written reviews (including those by the ECR-Reviewer). Scientific Officer notes will be sent if the application is discussed during the committee meeting. All reviewers agree to abide by CIHR's Standards of Practice for Peer Review, please ensure your written reviews reflect these standards.

Date modified: