Strengthening peer review together: Engaging the community to shape the future of the Project Grant program

The most important thing CIHR can do is deliver high-quality peer review that is trusted by the research community. Without that trust, the entire system is at risk. Achieving this requires listening to the perspectives of the community we serve.

CIHR’s strength lies in the partnership we share with the research community and our collective commitment to excellence. On February 24 and 25, CIHR convened approximately 90 Project Grant peer review committee Chairs and Scientific Officers in Ottawa to discuss ways to strengthen the rigour of peer review, improve the quality of panel discussions and reduce burden for applicants, reviewers and institutions within our largest funding program—all with the goal of ensuring research dollars are allocated fairly and transparently.

The system is under strain. The number of applications submitted has increased by approximately 50 percent since the Spring 2023 Project Grant competition and shows no sign of slowing. At the same time, roughly half of the researchers we invite to participate in peer review decline. While this is not new, it remains a challenge we must address to ensure peer review remains sustainable.

We have also heard about ongoing challenges. In meetings last summer and again in January, members of the University Delegates Network, along with a subset of Project Grant Chairs and Scientific Officers, raised concerns about reviewer workload and turnover, frustrations with virtual meetings, and the discouragement of seeing so much excellent science left unfunded.

Yet this remains an inspiring time to be a scientist in Canada. That’s why we brought the community together to explore ways to increase the quality of our peer review process and ensure CIHR continues to support the most rigorous, high-quality research.

As a group, we discussed the implications, feasibility, benefits and drawbacks of several ideas, including:

  • setting clearer expectations for participation in peer review when submitting or holding a CIHR grant—reinforcing that peer review is not simply volunteer work but a professional responsibility and service to the community—and identifying ways to incentivize participation and ensure institutions recognize this essential contribution;
  • expanding the roles of Chairs and Scientific Officers, including in reviewer assignment and recruitment;
  • reintroducing some in-person peer review committee meetings by alternating between virtual and in-person formats;
  • strategies to strengthen peer review quality through competition design.

Some of these discussions are preliminary while others build on ongoing conversations with the community about topics like limits on applications, resubmissions or how much an individual can apply for or hold, grant sizes, and the potential implications of moving to a single annual Project Grant competition supported by an in-cycle process that provides early reviewer feedback and allows applicants to respond before full peer review.

On the second day, Project Grant Chairs and Scientific Officers also worked together to propose updates to peer review committee mandates to ensure their scope and structure reflect the current state and evolution of science.

CIHR has not made decisions on any of these approaches. We will not proceed without continued engagement with the community. While we are stewards of the funds entrusted to us, this is the research community’s competition and peer review process. Before making any decisions, we will invite feedback from the community. Once decisions are made, considerations, supporting data and the rationale for the decisions will be shared clearly and transparently.

This spring, we will return with more detailed proposals on strengthening the Project Grant program and seek your feedback.

In closing, I want to thank every Project Grant Chair and Scientific Officer, every CIHR peer reviewer, the CIHR team and everyone who gives generously of their time to help CIHR deliver on its mandate. Despite demanding schedules, you contribute invaluable expertise and energy to advancing science in Canada. Our work would not be possible without you.

Thank you for your continued dedication. Together, we are strengthening peer review and helping ensure that Canada’s research ecosystem continues to thrive.

Sincerely,

Adrian Mota
Vice-President, Research – Programs

Date modified: