Reviewer Quality Feedback Form

This copy of the Reviewer Quality Feedback Form and it's interpretation guidelines are provided as information only. If you are a Chair or Scientific Officer, you will receive details about how to complete and submit the information.

Interpretation guidelines for the Reviewer Feedback form categories

For Chairs and Scientific Officers

Category Criteria Checklist Type of Feedback Examples
Review Quality

A high quality review adheres to the following three criteria:

  1. Appropriateness: Reviewer comments are fair, understandable, confidential and respectful.
  2. Robustness: Review is thorough, complete and credible. It contains sufficient details to justify given ratings.
  3. Utility: Reviewer feedback is constructive and addresses the needs of reviewers, applicants and funders.
Effective Contributor: Overall, the majority of reviews met all Review Quality criteria. Reviews are acceptable and meet all Review Quality critieria as per the checklist.
Outstanding Contributor: Overall, the majority of reviews went over and above expectations. Reviews went over and above expectations (e.g., insightful comments - detailing both strengths and weaknesses - that will significantly aid both the applicant and other reviewers)
Needs Improvement: One or more instances in review(s) that did not meet a Review Quality criteria.
  1. Review(s) lack appropriateness (e.g., contains biased and/or inappropriate comments)
  2. Review(s) lacks robustness (e.g., contain insufficient details to justify given ratings)
  3. Review(s) lack utility (e.g., comments are not constructive and not helpful to applicants to improve their  future submissions)
  1. Professionalism: The Reviewer comported themselves in a professional manner and responded to inquiries/requests from Chairs and Scientific Officers.
  2. Contribution: The Reviewer constructively and meaningfully participated in discussions of their assigned applications and adequately presented the identified strengths and weaknesses that contributed to their application rating.

Note: Please do not flag individuals based on differing personalities, presentation styles/formats (e.g. participation via teleconference) and possible language barriers.

Effective Contributor: Overall, the Reviewer met all participation criteria. The Reviewer contributed to discussions of their assigned applications in a professional manner.
Outstanding Contributor: Overall, the Reviewer's participation went over and above expectations.
  1. Constructively participated in application discussions NOT assigned to them
  2. Agreed to take additional tasks on short notice (e.g., to review more applications)
Needs Improvement: Overall, the Reviewer did not meet all participation criteria.
  1. Lacks professionalism (e.g., stubborn, combative, overly critical/vocal, inappropriate/biased comments)
  2. Difficult to chair (e.g., not responsive to chair’s suggestions, interrupts, speaks too much)
  3. Major presentation weaknesses (e.g., not well prepared, difficulty presenting, difficult to hear, unclear/unfocused comments)
  4. Low participation level (e.g., not engaged as primary reviewer in discussions, absentminded)

For staff

Category Criteria Checklist Type of Feedback


  1. Submitting Conflict Declaration/ATR
  2. Submitting written reviews

Needs Improvement – Pre-meeting

Items were submitted and/or completed late, required follow-up or were not submitted at all.

Note: Please take into consideration any circumstances that you are aware of which may excuse late completion of a peer review task.

Responsiveness and Review Quality


  1. Submitting written reviews
  2. QA and Editing
  3. Revision

Needs Improvement – Post-meeting

Reviews were submitted late, were flagged for inappropriate wording, or required revisions.

Note: Please take into consideration any circumstances that you are aware of which may excuse late completion of a peer review task.

“Other (please specify below):” Please provide any pertinent feedback not covered by existing categories.


Date modified: