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
General Feedback
  • Please ensure general feedback comments do NOT include comments that are better suited for Evaluation Categories listed below (e.g., Outstanding Contributor or Needs Improvement categories).
Review Quality

A high quality review adheres to the following three criteria:

  1. Appropriateness: Review comments are fair, understandable, original, confidential and respectful.
  2. Robustness: Review is thorough, complete and credible. It contains sufficient details to justify given rating.
  3. Utility: Reviewer feedback is constructive and addresses the needs of reviewers, applicants and funders.
Outstanding Contributor: Overall, the majority of reviews exceeded expectations.
  1. Written reviews exceeded expectations (e.g., thorough and 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. Written review(s) lack appropriateness (e.g., contains biased and/or inappropriate comments)
  2. Written review(s) lacks robustness (e.g., contain insufficient details to justify given rating)
  3. Written review(s) lack utility (e.g., comments are not constructive and not helpful to applicants to improve their future submissions)
  1. Professionalism: The Reviewer conducted 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.

Outstanding Contributor: Overall, the Reviewer's participation exceeded expectations.
  1. Participated constructively in discussions of applications 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 a 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 in discussions of assigned applications, distracted)

For staff

Category Criteria Checklist Type of Feedback


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

Needs Improvement

  1. Tasks were submitted and/or completed late
  2. Required follow-up to submit scores and reviews prior to end of meeting

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



  1. Editing reviews/scores
  2. Submitting written reviews

Needs Improvement

  1. Reviews were not submitted by end of meeting
  2. Reviews were not submitted by Notice of Decision

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

Staff Feedback (Voluntary)
  • Please provide feedback (positive and/or negative) on the reviewer's participation (e.g., interactions with staff/committee)
  • Did any of the items above involve a discussion directly with the reviewer?


Date modified: