Project Grant: Fall 2018 Peer review participants
The peer review process relies on the time and dedication of experts across the health research spectrum. For the Fall 2018 Project Grant competition, a total of 1337 individuals* (including Chairs , Scientific Officers , reviewers  and early career researcher (ECR) observers ) participated in 58 peer review committees.
*Note: Some individuals played multiple roles, such as chairing one review panel and then acting as a peer reviewer in another, which is why the role counts do not add up to 1337.
Approximately 73% (885) of the committee members are members of the College of Reviewers, which has specific membership selection criteria. As a first step, CIHR staff provided lists of suggested reviewers based on specific selection criteria, and then all reviewers (100%) were vetted by committee Chairs and Scientific Officers.
Peer review participants by sex
1129 invited to participate
552 accepted (48.89% acceptance rate)
1751 invited to participate
828 accepted (47.29% acceptance rate)
5 invited to participate
4 accepted (80.00% acceptance rate)
*The peer review committees for the Project Grant program have not been static to date. This means that reviewers have been invited anew for each competition. (Note: The program will begin to use standing peer review committees, starting with the Spring 2019 competition). For the Fall 2018 competition, each individual who accepted the invitation to review had to complete their Conflict and Ability to Review assessment of each application in their committee. This assessment allowed the committee Chair, Scientific Officers, and CIHR staff to assign applications to appropriate reviewers while also taking into account each reviewer’s declared expertise and workload. This meant that some individuals who accepted the invitation to review may not have received any assignments (e.g., their expertise did not match the applications in need of review, all applications within their area of expertise were already assigned, or there were not enough applications available to give them a workload that would be a meaningful use of their time). It has therefore been a normal part of the process to have a difference between the number of individuals who accept the invitation to review and the number of individuals who ultimately participate.
The figures above include the ECR observers.
Participants by region
The following table is based on the region information of the individual’s institution. The table includes all peer review participants, including ECR observers.
|Prince Edward Island||3||2||66.67%||2|
|Newfoundland & Labrador||29||8||27.59%||8|
|No province or territory specified||11||7||63.64%||7|
Participants by pillar
The following table is based on self-reported research pillar proficiency data from peer review participants (and not all participants provided the information). The table does not include ECR observers.
|Biomedical (Pillar 1)||701||62.04%|
|Clinical (Pillar 2)||212||18.76%|
|Health systems/services (Pillar 3)||97||8.58%|
|Social/Cultural/Environmental/Population Health (Pillar 4)||120||10.62%|
Note: The proportions of peer review participants by pillar reflect the types of applications submitted to the competition. For more information, please visit the competition results page.
- Date modified: