Resubmissions
How CIHR handles resubmissions

What is a resubmitted application?

All applicants that were unsuccessful in their previous submission may resubmit their application to a subsequent Project Grant competition. These applications are considered resubmissions.

Committee members are instructed to treat all applications, including resubmissions, as new applications. This is done in an effort to ensure that all applications are reviewed relative to each other.

Resubmitting an application: Response to previous reviews

If you are resubmitting an unsuccessful application, you may provide a response (maximum of 2 pages) to previous reviewers' comments from a previous competition(s) (either Project or another priority-driven initiative). It should be noted that addressing previous reviews does NOT guarantee that the application will be better positioned to be funded as it is placed in a new competition and will be evaluated relative to new applications.

For more information and instructions on submitting a response to previous reviews please refer to the Project Grant: Application Instructions.

Peer Review

The Project Grant peer review process involves the evaluation of applications (new and resubmissions) by a group of reviewers, who have (individually or collectively) the required experience and expertise to assess the quality and/or potential impact of the proposed research and/or research related activities, within the context of the funding opportunity objectives. These reviewers are grouped into Peer Review Committees based on their expertise and topics of applications submitted to these committees for each competition. As part of the Project Grant peer review process, for each competition, expert reviewers will review and rate their assigned applications individually. Then, at the committee meetings, these same reviewers will meet to streamline, discuss, and rate the applications.

As there are several peer review committees within the Project Grant competition, all applications, including resubmissions, may be evaluated by a different peer review committee than that suggested by the applicant or where it was previously reviewed. In consultation with committee Chairs and Scientific Officers, an application may be transferred to ensure proper alignment with the committee mandate and appropriate matching of reviewer expertise. Furthermore, given the dynamic nature of committee membership between competitions, applications are not necessarily evaluated by the same peer reviewers from one competition to the next, although every effort is made to ensure some continuity between reviews where possible.

Peer Reviewers do not have access to the previous iteration of the application and are instructed to evaluate the application submitted as a stand-alone entity. However, they are asked to  evaluate the “Response to Preview Review” section (please see application instructions). Depending on the cohort of applications received by a committee, an application may receive higher or lower rating and/or ranking than in previous competition depending on how it compares to the evaluation criteria and other applications’ ratings/rankings .

Date modified: