CIHR Foundation Scheme Stage 2Reviewer Report Form

Reviewer Name:
Applicant(s):
Title of Study:
Date of Review:

Please email this form to the Principal Applicant.

  • The purpose of this form is to provide the internal reviewers with CIHR Foundation adjudication criteria. You can directly append your detailed comments to the draft application (instead of using this form) and send both to the Principal Applicant.

Reviewers must take into consideration the applicant’s career stage,research field and institutional settingwhen assessing each criterion.

CIHR has provided the following scale including descriptors and definitions. Reviewers are encouraged to use the full breadth of the scale and should use the increased granularity within the top descriptors to express differences within these categories.

Criterion 1: Quality of the Program

Sub-Criterion 1.1: Research Concept (25%)
– 10,500 characters including spaces: approx. 3 pages
  • Are the goal and objectives of the proposed program well-defined and well-articulated?
  • Is there conceptual coherence within the program of research?
  • Are the potential short-term and long-term program outputs significant? Are they likely to significantly advance health-related knowledge and/or its translation into improved health care, health systems, and/or health outcomes?
/ Grade:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Sub-Criterion 1.2: Research Approach (25%)
–10,500 characters including spaces: approx. 3 pages
  • Is the research approach appropriate to deliver on the proposed program objectives?
  • Does the approach allow for flexibility in direction as the program evolves?
  • Does the approach include a high level description of how progress and success will be measured?
  • Does the approach include a plan for identifying potential challenges and applying appropriate mitigation strategies?
/ Grade:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:

Criterion 2: Quality of the Expertise, Experience, and Resources

The Foundation Scheme CV(s) will also be used as part of this assessment.

Sub-Criterion 2.1: Expertise (20%)
–10,500 characters including spaces: approx. 3 pages
  • Does the applicant have the appropriate expertise and relevant experience to lead and manage the proposed program of research, considering its objectives and scope?
  • Is there an appropriate complement and level of engagement and/or commitment from key Program Expert(s) and (as applicable) applicant partners?
/ Grade:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Sub-Criterion 2.2: Mentorship and Training (20%)
–7,000 characters including spaces: approx. 2 pages
  • Does the research program include a comprehensive mentorship and training plan for building capacity and positioning students, trainees, knowledgeusers, emerging scholars and/or new/early career investigators for successful research careers and/or other career paths in non-academic health-related fields?
  • Does the proposed plan demonstrate an appropriate approach for meeting its objectives in relation to the program of research and the research field?
  • Does the plan include a strategy for identifying and mitigating potential challenges?
/ Grade:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Sub-Criterion 2.3: Quality of Support Environment (10%)
– 3,500 characters including spaces: approx. 1 page
  • Is the described environment(s) appropriate to enable the conduct of the program of research, and to manage and deliver on the objectives and key components of the proposed research program (e.g., research, knowledge translation, mentoring/training) through the provision of, or access to, the required infrastructure.
/ Grade:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Budget Request – 3,500 characters including spaces: approx. 1 page
This is not part of the scientific assessment of the application, but reviewers are asked to make a recommendation on the appropriateness of the funding request.
  • Is the requested budget appropriate in order to support the proposed program of research? Is it realistic and well-justified, in the context of the applicants’ baseline funding amount?
  • If the request is significantly higher than the applicants historical grant levels, is it appropriately justified? Note: Justifications for CIHR funding to replace other on-going sources of funding (e.g., health charity, provincial funding agency) are not acceptable.

Recommendations:
Other comments
While this section will not be part of the adjudication by CIHR – we have included this section to allow for any additional comments regarding:
  • Summary(3,500 characters including spaces):
  • The broad goal(s) of the proposed research and clear linkage indicating how they fit the objectives of thefunding opportunity.
  • A brief overview of relevant background information and/or rationale for the proposed research.
  • Specific research aims with a brief overview of the methodology that will be used to address each of theresearch aims.
  • The nature of the core expertise being brought together to address the proposed research. Informationmay include important collaborations, within or outside of the research community that will be accessed toachieve the outlined research goals.
  • Expected outcomes of the proposed research highlighting the significance of the proposed research and how it will advance knowledge and/or its application to health care, health systems and/or health outcomes.

CV Most Significant Contributions (3,500 characters)
Others
  • Lay Abstract (2,000 characters)
  • References (7,000 characters)
  • Attachments: Figures (max 2 pages)
  • If applicable, gender and sex considerations

Last update: December 11, 2015 for Foundation Scheme 2015 2nd Live Pilot