Designing for the Future: The New Open Suite of Programs and Peer Review Process - Long descriptions

Figure 1

This figure describes the overall objective of the Open Suite of Programs, and the objectives of the Foundation and Project Schemes. The objectives are as follows:

Overall Suite: To contribute to a sustainable Canadian health research enterprise by supporting world-class researchers in the conduct of research and its translation across the full spectrum of health.

Foundation Scheme: To contribute to a sustainable foundation of health research leaders by providing long-term support to pursue innovative, high impact programs of research.

Project Scheme: To capture ideas with the greatest potential for important advances in health-related knowledge, the health care system and/or health outcomes, by supporting projects with a specific purpose and defined endpoint.

Back to report

Figure 2

This figure illustrates the two-stage competition process for the Project Scheme.

Stage 1 review assesses the concept and feasibility of the project. Applicants submit their Stage 1 Application, which is matched to five expert reviewers. Reviewers complete the Stage 1 remote review and submit their results to CIHR.

Stage 2, the final assessment stage, involves face-to-face discussion by a number of inter-disciplinary committees. These committees will make recommendations on which "grey zone" applications to fund.

At the end of the Project Scheme competition process, CIHR anticipates supporting approximately 470 applications per competition. Note that there are two Project Scheme competitions per year.

Back to report

Figure 3

This figure outlines adjudication criteria and sub-criteria at each stage of the competition process for the Project Scheme. The relative weighting of each criterion is included, where applicable.

At Stage 1 – Concept and Feasibility, the following criterion and sub-criterion will be assessed.

Concept

• Quality of the Idea
• Importance of the idea

Feasibility

• Approach/Methodology
• Expertise
• Quality of the environment

Budget

Note that there is no weighting attached to the Budget criterion. Although budgets will not factor into an application’s overall ranking, peer reviewers will be advising CIHR on what constitutes an appropriate level of support for the project.

At Stage 2, the final assessment stage, the overall quality of select "grey zone" applications will be assessed.

Back to report

Figure 4

This figure illustrates the three-stage competition process for the Foundation Scheme.

Stage 1 Screening assesses the caliber of the applicant. Applicants submit their Stage 1 Application, which is matched to five expert reviewers. Reviewers complete the Stage 1 remote review and submit their results to CIHR. Successful applicants are invited to submit a Stage 2 Application.

Stage 2 review focuses on the quality of the proposed program, research capacity and support environment. Reviewers complete the Stage 2 remote review and submit their results to CIHR.

Stage 3, the final assessment stage, involves face-to-face discussion by a number of inter-disciplinary committees. These committees will make recommendations on which "grey zone" applications to fund.

At the end of the Foundation Scheme competition process, CIHR anticipates supporting approximately 114 applications per year.

Back to report

Figure 5

This figure outlines adjudication criteria and sub-criteria at each stage of the competition process for the Foundation Scheme. The relative weighting of each criterion is included, where applicable.

At Stage 1 – Caliber of the Applicant, the following criterion and sub-criterion will be assessed:

Vision/Program Direction

Caliber of the Applicant

• Research Leadership
• Productivity
• Significance of Contributions

At Stage 2 – Quality of the Proposed Program, Research Capacity and Support Environment, the following criterion and sub-criterion will be assessed:

Quality of the Program

• Research Concept
• Research Approach

Quality of the Research Capacity

• Expertise
• Mentorship

Quality of the Support Environment

Budget

Note that there is no weighting attached to the Budget criterion. Although budgets will not factor into an application’s overall ranking, peer reviewers will be advising CIHR on what constitutes an appropriate level of support for the project.

At Stage 3, the final assessment stage, the overall quality of select "grey zone" applications will be assessed.

Back to report

Figure 6

This figure illustrates the vision and components of the College of Reviewers. The College encompasses:

• Commitment to quality and recognition from all parties
• Faculties of expertise
• Members' expertise and experience profiles
• Orientation/development programs
• Mentorship

National and international qualified members will be organized into faculties of expertise, and may take on different roles with different responsibilities (e.g., reviewer, moderator/chair, matching facilitator, faculty chair, mentor). Examples of faculties include:

• Reproductive Biology
• Behaviour
• Immunology
• Home Care
• Clinical Trials
• Global Health
• Cancer
• Epidemiology
• Interventions
• Synthesis
• Children
• Ethics
• Patient perspectives
• Social determinants of health
• Technology transfer
• Rural
• Genetics
• Policy
• Other

Back to report

Figure 10

This figure illustrates the transition timelines for the piloting of peer review design elements, the phasing-in of the new Open Suite of Programs and peer review process, and the phasing-out of existing programs.

A number of pilots and competitions are shown in the figure. These include:

Back to report

Date modified:

2012-12-20