Project Grant Competition
Part 1: Updates and Reminders
Title
Welcome to this learning module in the Project Grant competition series: Part 1: Updates and Reminders. In this module, reviewers will learn about updates and reminders for the upcoming project grant competition to ensure they are well prepared for the peer review process.
Playbar buttons
This course is designed to be self-paced.
Use the playbar below to resume playback, navigate between slides, mute and unmute audio, and toggle closed captions. You can also browse the full table of contents, and collapse or move the playbar.
Updates to the Project Grant competition
There are four recent updates to highlight in advance of the Fall 2026 Project Grant competition: clearer guidance for the Ability to Review task; no use of AI tools in peer review; more distinctive committee mandates; and an expanded role of Chairs and Scientific Officers.
Remote peer review will remain the standard for the Fall 2026 Project Grant Competition. For more information, you can review the frequently asked questions.
Clearer guidance for the Ability to Review (ATR) task
Using the refreshed descriptors in the ATR guide, reviewers can more accurately identify all applications for which they could provide a reasonable review.
Response options should reflect relative comfort and expertise, not personal preference for specific topics, applicants or methodologies. This will ensure that the committee has the breadth of expertise needed for each application, while fairly distributing applications and managing individual workloads. Reviewers should refer to the descriptors and Conflict of Interest Guide when selecting response options for each application; and use the comments section in ResearchNet to provide additional context that could be helpful, such as which parts of the application they do and do not have expertise in. For example, "I declared a medium; however, I have high expertise in the neurogenesis part of the application." Or, "I declared a low; however, I have expertise in gene targeting methods."
Look for the guide in the "Conflicts and Ability to Review - CIHR Project Grant Competition" email that will be sent in preparation for this task.
AI tools are not to be used in peer review
CIHR is strictly prohibiting the use of AI tools for evaluating grant applications, including in the drafting and editing of review notes, as this could result in breaches of privacy and the loss of custody of intellectual property.
Please review section 2.8 Guidance on the use of generative AI in the evaluation of grant applications in the Peer Review Manual and The use of generative artificial intelligence in the development and review of research proposals for more information.
More distinctive committee mandates
Drawing on their expertise and community feedback, Project Grant Chairs and Scientific Officers reviewed all committee mandates to address issues of clarity and overlap among panels. Thirty-two committee mandates were updated to ensure clear distinctions between committees. These refinements will help ensure that applications are assessed by individuals with the most appropriate expertise.
Has your committee mandate been updated? Review your committee mandate at the link provided.
Expanded role of Chairs and Scientific Officers
As part of its ongoing work to strengthen the peer review process, CIHR is beginning to expand the role Project Grant Chairs and Scientific Officers play in reviewer recruitment and assignment. Beginning in Fall 2026, we will be asking Chairs and Scientific Officers to be more involved in the reviewer invitation process–providing them with more insight into our recruitment efforts. We expect that capitalizing on the scientific expertise and experience of the Chair and Scientific Officer to shape reviewer pools will further improve the review process. This change was a direct result of extensive consultations with the Chairs and SOs earlier this year.
Reminders for the Project Grant competition
For the Fall 2026 Project Grant competition, there are also five important reminders for peer reviewers.
- Multi-factor authentication for ResearchNet
- Mandatory attachment requirement for Response to Previous Reviews
- Research Security Policies
- Acceptable attachment formats, and
- Uploading Reviews to ResearchNet
Multi-factor authentication for ResearchNet
CIHR is committed to keeping our systems secure and protecting our users' privacy. As part of this commitment, CIHR implemented multi-factor authentication (MFA) in ResearchNet in fall 2024.
The MFA process will be triggered every time a user signs in to ResearchNet. When a user signs in, they will be required to enter a code that is sent to the email address connected to their ResearchNet account profile. MFA will apply to all users and cannot be skipped. Should a ResearchNet session time out after 60 minutes of inactivity, users will need to re-authenticate themselves using MFA.
If you have any questions, please consult the Frequently Asked Questions or reach out to the Contact Centre.
Mandatory attachment requirement for response to previous reviews
If applicants choose to submit a Response to Previous Reviews, they must include all the reviews and Scientific Officer (SO) Notes (if available) received in that round of submission in a new attachment called Previous Reviews.
Reminder to reviewers: Response to Previous Reviews remains an optional task and both these attachments are independent of the resubmission question. Reviewers will only see the Response to Previous Reviews in an application if the Previous Reviews attachment was included.
Research security policies
There are two research security policies that continue to be in effect for applicants to the Fall 2026 competition. The Risk assessment form for the National Security Guidelines for Research Partnerships (NSGRP) and the attestation form for the Policy on Sensitive Technology Research and Affiliations of Concern (STRAC). Reviewers will not see these attachments in their review packages and should not raise research security concerns as part of their review. Reviewers should focus their assessments on the scientific review and specific evaluation criteria provided. If concerns or questions related to research security are raised by committee members during the review or peer review meeting, CIHR staff will redirect the information to CIHR's Research Security team for their awareness.
Acceptable attachment formats
While CIHR has simplified its attachment formatting requirements for applications, all applicant-prepared attachments must continue to use a minimum of 12 point, Times New Roman font in black type. Other fonts and font sizes may be used for text in tables, charts, figures, graphs and legends only, as long as it is legible when the page is viewed at 100%. If these are not legible when viewed at 100%, reviewers are not required to read them or account for them as part of their assessments.
Uploading Reviews to ResearchNet
CIHR reminds all reviewers to exercise due diligence when uploading reviews to ResearchNet. Please ensure that each uploaded review corresponds to the correct assigned application and verify the accuracy of each review prior to final submission.
Survey
This concludes the updates and reminders to peer reviewers of the Fall 2026 Project Grant competition. Before concluding this module, please complete the survey below to assist CIHR in tracking the uptake, and improving the quality of the learning. The same survey will be available at the end of each module in this series. You can either complete it at the end of your learning journey, or whenever you have module-specific feedback to share. If you are unable to use the survey below, please visit the survey directly.
When you are finished, use the buttons at the bottom of the screen to explore additional resources, review the peer review process in Part 2: Overview of the Peer Review Process, or exit the module.
Additional Resources
The resources listed on screen will provide you with additional details to prepare you for reviewing applications in the Project Grant competition.
Peer Review Manual – Project Grant competition
Project Grant competition funding Opportunity
Bias in Peer Review elearning module
Conducting Quality Reviews elearning module
- Date modified: