Canadian Institutes of Health Research Information session by Teleconference for Doctoral Research Award Peer Review Committee Members Agenda Topics to be covered on this call: 1. Program overview a. ResearchNet b. Program description c. eligibility criteria 2. Application Assignment 3. Peer Review Process a. Process overview and scoring criteria b. What a full application contains c. Deadlines 4. Feedback to applicants 5. Question Period 1. Program Overview a) ResearchNet We are pleased to announce that all Doctoral Research Awards applications were submitted online through the e-submission process using ResearchNet, which is the secure CIHR system designed for this purpose. With the advent of ResearchNet, CIHR no longer sends paper copies of applications to reviewers. This is to address environmental and security issues. CIHR encourages ResearchNet as their primary tool to conduct reviews. We trust that ResearchNet should be sufficient for evaluating the applications assigned to you given its recent technological advancements. Internal reviewers are asked to submit their reviews online, using ResearchNet. You have online access to your conflict assessments, assigned applications, and the Peer Review Guide for Doctoral Research Awards applications, which will be helpful in completing your reviews. Please read these documents carefully before beginning your reviews.
By now most of you have declared your conflicts already, but if you have not done so we would like to remind you to please log on to RNET to complete this task as soon as possible, as we need to re-assign those applications in a reasonable timeframe. If you have questions regarding access to ResearchNet, the conflict declaration process on RNET or any questions regarding what constitutes a conflict, please stay on the line and we will discuss these issues at the end of the presentation. Browser tabs Please avoid the use of multiple browser tabs when performing reviews if using one of the newer internet browsers that supports these. Please refrain from opening ResearchNet in multiple tabs within a single browser session if your browser permits this. Failure to do so may result in conflicts between applications and consequences with respect to saving of the work you have completed. While the risk of database conflicts associated with the use of multiple windows in new browser sessions appears to be lower, this is also discouraged. We would also ask that anyone having used multiple tabs to perform the work done to date verify that the reviews accurately reflect the assessment. Fall 2011 Competition CIHR received approximately 1600 applications for this awards program. b) Program description The CIHR Doctoral Research Awards consist of two programs administered through a single application: The Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarships Doctoral Awards (CGS-D) program supports students who are pursuing a doctoral degree in a health-related field in Canada. The Doctoral Foreign Study Award (DFSA) supports students who are pursuing a doctoral degree in a health-related field abroad. These applications will include a one-page Foreign Study Rationale. Candidates apply to the CIHR Doctoral Awards competition and top-ranked candidates are awarded a CGS-D or DFSA depending on the proposed location of research. Both awards are of equivalent value and duration. All candidates are expected to have an exceptionally high potential for future research achievement and productivity. The value is $35,000 for up to 3 years. Trainee stipend: 30,000 per annum. Research allowance: 5,000 per annum.
CIHR will fund up to 10 DFSA and roughly 180 CGS-D awards. The number of funded awards will vary somewhat depending on the outcome of the ranking process (ie: number of ties) and the number of cancelled awards. Decisions are released to the candidates on April 16. Awards can be taken up on May 1, September 1, or January 1 st following the decision announcement. c) Eligibility Open to Canadian citizens and permanent residents of Canada at the time of application. The maximum duration of award funding from all federal sources to undertake graduate studies is four years, including a maximum one (1) year at the Master's level. Students in combined programs such as MD/PhD or OD/PhD are eligible to apply. As of the application deadline, all candidates must have completed a minimum of 12 months of graduate study at the Master's or PhD level.* Candidates cannot exceed a certain number of months in PhD study, ranging from 22 months to 34 months, depending on their background (ie: whether they ve transferred directly from an undergraduate program to a PhD program, whether they ve completed a Master s degree or a minimum of12 months of training at the Master s level). These limits are in place so that the students have relatively similar levels of experience, making it easier to compare students during the assessment process. Please note that applications are screened for eligibility. Therefore, reviewers do not need to assess eligibility. However, given the volume of applications received by CIHR, it is always possible that an application that should have been screened out was allowed into the competition. If you happen to notice a case like this, please send an e-mail to the Doctoral Research Awards inbox. 2. Application Assignment to a specific committee Applications and committee members have been assigned to one of two committees based on CIHR s research themes: DRA A : Themes 1 (Biomedical Research) & 2 (Clinical Research); and DRA B : Themes 3 (Health Services Research) & 4 (Social, Cultural, Environmental and Population Health)
Should you feel that you cannot evaluate an application, or that the application would be better placed in a different committee, please contact CIHR and we will re-assign the application. 3. Review No changes have been made to the peer review process for this round. The process still follows the instructions contained in the Guide for Reviewers. a) Process Overview and Scoring Criteria Each application has been assigned to two reviewers whose ratings will be given equal weight and then averaged. When the initial peer review process is completed, you may be requested to participate in a discrepancy review to reduce the discrepancy between certain applications that you have evaluated. Should the discrepancy not be reduced to an acceptable level, a third reviewer will be assigned to the application, and the final score will be determined by taking the average of the three scores. If you are requested to do a discrepancy review on an application, you will be notified by e-mail with the coordinates of the other reviewer and your access to that application on RNET will be re-opened. The goal of this process is to have both reviewers discuss the application. In the end, you are not obliged to change your score but we still ask that you re-submit to notify us that the discussion has taken place. Please note that you may be asked to act as third reviewer on certain applications. Once the peer review and ranking processes are completed, applicants can access documentation pertaining to the review of their application, such as reviewer s feedback and final decisions, via ResearchNet. Overview of the Three Evaluation Criteria for CIHR Doctoral Research Awards: The raw scores that you submit via ResearchNet for each criterion on the 0 to 4.9 scale will be weighted automatically by CIHR in the calculation of an overall score. Criterion Achievements and Activities of the Candidate Publication Activity 10 % Other Research Activity 10 % Academic Performance 15 % Characteristics and Abilities of the Candidate Weights for each criterion 35 %
Critical thinking Independence Perseverance Originality Organizational skills Interest in discovery Research Ability Leadership The Research Training Environment Training program for the candidate 10 % Scientific Activity 5 % Research resources 5 % Training record 5 % b) What is a full application? 40 % 40 % 25 % 100% 100% Please note that the application can be viewed in full or by each section individually. The Peer Review application version should contain the following: * Pages 1 to 7 which provides general information on the research project title, location, proposed supervisor s names, degree held, names of sponsors, lay abstract, project descriptors and the degree for which support is being requested. * Training Expectations section (max. 2 pages) * Summary of the Research Project (max. 1 page) * Space, Facilities and Personnel support section (max 1 page) * Foreign Training Environment rationale for Doctoral Foreign Study Award candidates (max 1 page) * Transcripts. They are found in the Transcripts section of the application and sometimes in the Other section. * 3 Sponsor letters * CV module for applicant should contain all pages starting with page 2 and followed by the following attachments (note that attachments are optional): activities and contributions (one page max), interruptions and delays (one page max), patents and copyrights (one page max) and publication list (no page limit for candidates). You may find publication acceptance confirmations at the end of the publication list or in the Other section of the application. * CV module for the Primary supervisor should contain all pages starting with page 2 and followed by the following attachments (again, attachments are optional): most significant contributions (one page max), activities and contributions (one page max), interruptions and delays (one page max), patents
and copyrights (one page max) and publication list (2 pages max) OR titles and contributions (2 pages max) *Please note that CIHR removed pages of CV attachments if they exceeded page limits (a note state additional pages have been removed would be found at the bottom of the page preceding the pages that were removed. This was most commonly done for supervisor publication lists, which often exceeded the 2 page limit. * In the situation where there is a Co-supervisor, you will find his CV module following the one from the Primary supervisor and displayed the same way. **If you think that there are pages missing, please do not hesitate to contact us via the Doctoral Research Awards email address since this might be due to an administrative error during the scanning / printing of the application. c) Deadlines 1. The deadline for the submission of your scores is January 27, 2012. This date also appears when you are logging in your ResearchNet account and performing the assessment of the applications assigned to you. You may then be asked to re-review an application to reduce the discrepancy between two scores. Reviewers are given 2-3 business days to re-review an application. Should the discrepancy not be reduced by a sufficient amount, a third review will take place. You may be asked to act as a third reviewer for a few applications (generally, not more than 3). The re-review and third review process will take place over the month of February. 2. Once the discrepancy review process is finished, CIHR will generate the ranking list, and successful candidates will be notified of their decisions on ResearchNet and have access to their reviews on April 16. The names of the members on the peer review committee are published within weeks of the decision announcement. 4. Feedback to candidates Clarifications are frequently requested on how to provide feedback to candidates. It is important to note that while this section is not mandatory we do strongly recommend that you take the time to provide comments. These are often welcomed by candidates who often state that they are helpful in improving their applications for subsequent competitions. It also reduces instances of applicants questioning whether the reviewer s score is for the correct application. There is no formal way to proceed (bullet points, full paragraphs, etc.), but from past feedback we can suggest the following: * Keep it simple;
* Try to provide strengths and weakness of the application, but in a constructive way to help the candidate prepare a stronger application for the future; * Keep in mind that there can be sensitivity to tone, etc.; and * Use caution when referring to the candidate personally (e.g., use of he/she), particularly if you re-use similar comments (feedback on past reviews has included concerns regarding lack of effort in the review when gender-based terms have been misapplied). Thank you again for agreeing to serve as a peer review committee member in this competition. Your participation is greatly appreciated. 5. Question period