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:
|
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. |
|
||
Participation |
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. |
|
||
Needs Improvement: Overall, the Reviewer did not meet all participation criteria. |
|
For staff
Category | Criteria Checklist | Type of Feedback |
---|---|---|
Responsiveness | Pre-meeting
|
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 | Post-meeting
|
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. |
References
- CIHR Standards of Practice in Peer Review
- Review Quality Checklist
- Project Grant Program – Peer Review Manual
- Project Grant Program – Peer Review Process Learning Module
- Date modified: