Project Grant: Review process

Peer review process

The Project Grant peer review process involves the evaluation of applications by a group of reviewers who have (individually or collectively) the required experience and expertise to assess the quality, the potential impact of the proposed research and the research-related activities, within the context of the funding opportunity objectives. These reviewers are grouped into Peer Review Committees based on their expertise and the topics of applications submitted to these committees.

Peer Review Committees (PRCs) are responsible for:

  • evaluating individual applications;
  • rating each application;
  • discussing applications at the face-to-face committee meeting;
  • recommending a budget and term to support the proposed research if the application is approved.

For a step-by-step walk through of the peer review process and for information about the roles and responsibilities of committee members, please consult the Peer Review Manual – Project. Applicants may wish to consult this document in order to better understand how reviewers will be instructed to evaluate their application(s).

Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis (SGBA) and Health Research

CIHR expects that all research applicants will include sex and gender into their research designs when appropriate. Sex- and gender-based analysis (SGBA) is an approach that systematically examines sex-based (biological) and gender-based (socio-cultural) differences between men, women, boys, girls and gender-diverse people. The purpose of SGBA is to promote rigorous science that is sensitive to sex and gender and therefore has the potential to expand our understanding of health determinants for all people. The SGBA section of the CIHR website contains helpful resources for applicants and peer reviewers alike, providing CIHR's definitions for sex, gender and SGBA, as well as information on applying SGBA to the development and assessment of research proposals.

Recruitment to Peer Review Committees (PRCs)

CIHR will extend invitations to members of the health research community to join specific Project Grant Peer Review Committees (PRCs), based on their area(s) of expertise. Reviewers will be recruited based on a set of selection criteria and in consultation with Committee Chairs and Scientific Officers. The Chairs also have a role in the selection of Scientific Officers.

Standing peer review committees have been established for the Project Grant competition. Committee core membership will be recruited for a term of service (typically 3 years, or 6 competitions). To maintain stability in membership, while providing a mechanism for membership renewal, a rotational system will be established for one third of the membership on a yearly basis. The membership may also be supplemented by additional members as required for a specific competition, based on the applications received and expertise needed for their review. These terms will also address the benefits of renewing the membership so that new perspectives are continually incorporated into the peer review process.

Application assignments to PRCs

Applications are initially assigned to the applicant’s first choice committee. Based on information provided at registration, CIHR staff review the initial committee assignments; if the application pressure is too high in a particular committee, the committee will be split in two in consultation with the Committee Chair and the two Scientific Officers. Chairs and Scientific Officers are then asked to review the assignment of applications to their committee based on the committee mandate. Applications may be reassigned if they are more appropriate (or more closely aligned) to the mandate of another committee and can be better assessed by that committee. The final authority for the assignment of applications to a peer review committee rests with CIHR.

Application assignments to reviewers

After confirming the assignment of applications to PRCs, applications are assigned to reviewers who identify any conflicts of interest that they may have and declare their ability to review the applications, in accordance with the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy of the Federal Research Funding Organizations. The Committee Chair and Scientific Officers, along with CIHR staff, assign each application to three reviewers based on their declared level of expertise.

Peer review recruitment process

The Chairs of the College of Reviewers have endorsed selection criteria for the recruitment of Committee Chairs, Scientific Officers and peer reviewers for the Project Grant competition. CIHR will recruit Chairs, Scientific Officers and reviewers based on the criteria outlined below.

Committee Chairs and Scientific Officers

Significant* Peer Review Experience

  • Previous experience as a grant program Committee Chair or Scientific Officer; or significant previous experience as a peer review committee member for a grant program; and
  • Past peer review performance met high standards (Chairs and Scientific Officers were engaged, followed appropriate policies, fulfilled their role well).

Independent Investigator status at a University or Research Institution.

Tri-council funding (or equivalent) has been held within the last 5 years.

*Significant experience includes participation in multiple review activities.

To meet the requirement of knowledge translation applications, a Committee Chair and the Scientific Officers may be recruited using a combination of the criteria above, as appropriate.

Peer Reviewers

Research Experience

  • Independent Investigator status at a University or Research Institution
  • At least one recent federally funded (or equivalent) peer reviewed grant as a Principal Investigator

Review Experience

  • At least two peer review roles at CIHR or other recognized organization
  • Completion of a training module on unconscious bias in peer review
  • Completion of learning modules on sex- and gender-based analysis in health research

Knowledge, Expertise and Lived Experience

  • Expertise within CIHR’s mandate

Knowledge Users will be recruited using a combination of the criteria above, as appropriate. Applications that are identified as having an integrated knowledge translation (iKT) component will be assessed by both researcher and knowledge user reviewers.

To ensure the highest quality of review, only reviewers with a solid review track record (i.e., reviewers engaged, submitted reviews on time, followed appropriate policies and procedures) will be invited to review for the Project Grant competitions.

If you meet the reviewer criteria and wish to state your interest in becoming a reviewer in the upcoming competitions, or if you have any questions about the peer review process, please contact CIHR at: CIHRProjectGrantProgram-IRSCProgrammesubventionsProjet@cihr-irsc.gc.ca.

Peer review committee membership lists

Peer Review committee membership lists for Project Grant competitions are posted online approximately 60 days after the competition funding decisions have been published on the CIHR website.

Date modified: