Project Grant: Application Instructions

Nominated Principal Applicant:

• The applicant who initiated/opened the registration in ResearchNet is identified as the Nominated Principal Applicant for the application.
• The Nominated Principal Applicant (NPA) can add participants to the application in ResearchNet by:
  • Entering their validated CIHR PIN;
    • If the participant's PIN is not validated, the participant must log in to ResearchNet and select the user tab (name in the top right banner) and select Validate your CIHR PIN. Please provide a validated PIN for all Collaborators as well. For instructions on how to generate a PIN, please refer to the section on Registering with CIHR.
    • Afterwards, the NPA can resume this process.
  • Entering their name;
  • Entering their role and participant type.
    • Principal Applicant
      • Independent Researcher – Early Career Investigator
      • Independent Researcher – Mid Career Investigator
      • Independent Researcher - Senior Investigator
      • Knowledge User
    • Co-Applicant
      • Independent Researcher – Early Career Investigator
      • Independent Researcher – Mid Career Investigator
      • Independent Researcher - Senior Investigator
      • Knowledge User
      • Trainee
      • Other
    • Collaborator
      • Independent Researcher – Early Career Investigator
      • Independent Researcher – Mid Career Investigator
      • Independent Researcher - Senior Investigator
      • Knowledge User
      • Trainee
      • Other

Principal Applicants and Co-Applicants:

• All Principal Applicants and Co-Applicants will have access to the application on ResearchNet so that they can contribute to the application.
• All Principal Applicants and Co-Applicants must complete the following in their own ResearchNet account:
  • Enter their CCV Confirmation Number or attach the Applicant Profile CV as applicable;
  • Complete their most significant contributions; and,
  • Consent.

Notes:

• Applicant Profile CV:
  • If not using a Biosketch CV, the Applicant Profile CV can be used by Knowledge users, non-academics, Indigenous organizations (as NPA, PA or Co-Applicant), and international applicants by using the available Applicant Profile CV template.
  • Although the Applicant Profile CV may not exceed three pages, there are no section restrictions; therefore, each applicant can choose what to emphasize. For non-academics, it is possible that not all sections are applicable.
• Only the NPA has the ability to submit the application. The NPA must wait for all other participants to complete their relevant sections of the application before submitting.
• Collaborators
  • do not have access to the application
  • are not required to enter their CCV Confirmation Number.
  • cannot attach the Applicant Profile CV.
  • do not appear on CIHR funding decisions

This mandatory Subtask captures information on the NPA, all Principal Applicants and all Co-Applicants (not Collaborators) and cannot exceed 3,500 characters, including spaces.

Note: The exact number of characters may vary slightly depending on the type of browser that you are using.

Provide information regarding your most significant contributions (maximum of 5) as they relate to the application. Contributions can take the form of:

• Publications, presentations, intellectual property, standards, code, datasets, other knowledge translation activities, etc.;
• Training and mentorship;
• Degrees, credentials, awards, certificates etc.;
• Clinical practice, policy development, community engagement etc.;
• Specialized training, strategic employment positions, etc.

The contributions that you choose to share should be directly relevant to the grant application and should demonstrate how you will contribute to the application at hand.

CIHR is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which recognizes the need to improve the ways in which the outputs of research are evaluated. Reviewers are instructed to assess productivity broadly by taking into consideration a range of contributions (not just publications) and impacts (e.g., influence on policy and practice, health outcomes, societal outcomes, and distinctions-based, meaningful and culturally safe health research). Reviewers are instructed not to use journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, as a surrogate measure of the quality and impact of individual research publications. As stated in DORA, the "scientific content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published".

Applicant Profile CV

The Applicant Profile CV can only be used by knowledge users, non-academics, Indigenous organizations, and international applicants. To complete this Subtask, download the Applicant Profile CV and complete the form as instructed then upload it in the "Attachments" section in the Participant Information Subtask.

Note: Academic applicants must use their CIHR Biosketch CV.

Additional CV Information - Leave

If you have taken a leave of absence in the past seven years (e.g., parental, bereavement, medical, or administrative leave), you may include a PDF document (no page limits) to supplement the publication information for that equivalent period of time in your CCV. Whatever length of time you have taken off from research in the past seven years is the amount of time that may be covered in the attachment. Note that leaves of absence should also be included in the appropriate section of your CV.

Consent

All Principal Applicants and Co-Applicants on the application must agree to the general conditions and consent to the disclosure of personal information before the NPA can submit the application to CIHR. Signed signature pages are not required. Note that the NPA will give final consent and submit in Task 8.

National Security Guidelines for Research Partnerships

The National Security Guidelines for Research Partnerships apply to Project grant applications involving one or more partner organizations from the private sector, including when they participate alongside other partner organizations from the public and/or not-for-profit sectors. For such partnerships, you and your post-secondary institution are required to complete a risk assessment form for your research project and submit it as an integral part of your Project grant application. For instructions on how to attach the risk assessment form, see Task 8: Attach other application material.

Note that this task and the "Identify Application Partners" task have different purposes and must each be completed, when required.

Refer to the Tri-agency guidance on the National Security Guidelines for Research Partnerships (NSGRP) for further information.

This information has been pre-populated from Registration and is editable at application.

This question pertains to Partnered/Integrated Knowledge Translation (iKT) Projects. Please note that the inclusion of a knowledge user on the application does not automatically make it an iKT-focused application. If yours is not an iKT proposal, then answer "No" to the above question.

Answer "yes" if your application consists of a knowledge translation or commercialization project and includes a partner and/or a knowledge user. If you answer "yes" to this question, please also indicate which of the following are included in your application:

1. A partner and knowledge user; or
2. A partner only; or
3. A knowledge user only.

If your project includes "a partner and a knowledge user" or "a partner only," you must identify at least one of them as an Applicant Partner.

If you select "a partner and a knowledge user" or "a knowledge user only," you must identify at least one Principal Applicant who is a knowledge user.

Applications that are identified as iKT projects may be assessed by both researcher and knowledge-user reviewers.

Indicate the primary location where the proposed research will be conducted.

This question will appear in the application and your response from your registration will display as read-only and will not be editable.

If you are awarded a grant, you must meet the necessary certification requirements in accordance with policies on the ethical conduct of research:

• Agreement on the Administration of Agency Grants and Awards by Research Institutions
• CIHR Funding Policies

For further information on research involving human participants and human biological materials, refer to the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans.

Containment Level: Definitions of Levels may be found in the Canadian Biosafety Standards and Guidelines.

Environmental Impact: Proposals will be reviewed for potential impacts on the environment in accordance with the Impact Assessment Act.

Answer "yes" if any phase of the proposed research will take place on "federal lands" as defined under the IAA.

Indicate if this application includes a clinical trial.

Note: CIHR is a signatory to the World Health Organization's Joint Statement on Public Disclosure of Results from Clinical Trials ("WHO Joint Statement") requiring all clinical trials to be registered and the results disclosed publicly in a timely manner.

For more information regarding clinical trials, please consult the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans – TCPS 2 (2018) – Chapter 11: Clinical Trials, as well as CIHR Policy Guide – Requirements for Registration and Disclosure of Results from Clinical Trials.

Please note that applications including a RCT have special requirements. For more information, refer to the Project Grant Funding Opportunity and RCT evaluation criteria and headings webpage.

While not all RCTs are clinical trials, if an RCT is also a clinical trial indicate "yes" to the question "Does this application contain a clinical trial?" in the Details subtask of the Enter Proposal Information section on ResearchNet

Consult the Health Canada website for details regarding obtaining an exemption under Section 56 of the CDSA.

Indicate if your application proposes research involving Indigenous Peoples.

If yes, explain how you are engaging with the Indigenous community in relation to the research proposal, so the reviewers can assess the level of engagement as required by Chapter 9 of the Tri-Council Policy Statement (limit of 2000 characters).

Applications with a central focus on carrying out meaningful and culturally safe research involving Indigenous Peoples, with the intent to promote health through research that is in keeping with Indigenous values and traditions, may be reviewed by the Indigenous Health Research (IHR) Committee. The IHR Committee may deem an application eligible for the Iterative Peer Review Process. See the Peer Review Manual – Project for additional information on the iterative review process.

For an application to be considered for review by the IHR committee and for the IHR peer review members to assess the level of engagement as required by Chapter 9 of the Tri-Council Policy Statement, you had to complete the following steps at registration:

1. Answer 'yes' to the question regarding the TCPS 2 – Chapter 9;
2. Provide a detailed justification in the text field to indicate how the project addresses the principles of the Tri-Council Policy Statement – Chapter 9 (limit of 2000 characters);
3. Select the Indigenous Health Research (IHR) Committee as the first suggested committee.

Please note that if you completed the above steps for your registration, when you submit your application, your research proposal must also explicitly describe how you will engage with the Indigenous community in relation to the research. The IHR committee will take specific considerations into account when evaluating applications submitted to it (see IHR Committee considerations under each Adjudication Sub-criterion below). Applications that do not fit with the IHR committee mandate will be reviewed by another committee.

Please consult these resources on how to integrate sex as a biological variable.

Please consult these resources on how to integrate gender as a socio-cultural factor.

If yes, describe how you will integrate sex and/or gender considerations into your research proposal (limit of 2000 characters).

If no, explain why sex and/or gender are not applicable to your research proposal (limit of 2000 characters).

Accounting for sex and gender has the potential to make health research more rigorous, reproducible and applicable to everyone. CIHR expects that all applicants will integrate sex and gender into their research designs when appropriate.

Reviewers will be explicitly assessing whether the integration of sex (as a biological variable) and/or gender (as a socio-cultural factor) is a strength, a weakness or not applicable to the proposal. Reviewers will also be prompted to comment on their assessment and asked to provide recommendations to the applicants on how they might improve the strength of their applications with respect to the integration of sex and/or gender. As such, in addition to the answers you provide for the sex- and/or gender-specific questions as noted above, you are asked to include details about how you have integrated sex as a biological variable and/or gender as a socio-cultural factor in your research design, methods, analysis and interpretation, and/or dissemination of findings within your research proposal, if applicable.

If sex and/or gender considerations are applicable to the research you are proposing, they must be integrated into your research proposal and not just discussed solely in this sex and/or gender textbox.

Your research proposal should stand-alone (i.e., it should contain a complete description of your project and all the information required to support your research plan, without any hyperlinks)

The page limits for a research proposal are:

• Research proposals submitted in English – 10 pages;
• Research proposals submitted in French – 12 pages.

In ResearchNet, the capping of the length of the research proposal is set at 12 pages. For research proposals submitted in English, any pages over the 10-page limit will be removed with no further notification to the Nominated Principal Applicant.

You should attach references as a separate document; references do not count towards the 10- (or 12) page limit for the research proposal (please see section below entitled Other Attachments – Project References).

Provide a clear, concise description of your proposed research, using the adjudication criteria outlined below.

Note:

• If you submit an application that includes a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) as a major component, there are specific requirements you must follow with respect to formatting. Furthermore, reviewers will take into account specific considerations when reviewing all applications including an RCT as a major component. Please consult RCT Evaluation Criteria and Headings for more information.
• Reviewers will take into account specific considerations when reviewing applications in the Indigenous Health Research (IHR) committee, as indicated below.
• Specific considerations will be taken into account in the review of applications in the Commercialization committee. All applications to the Commercialization committee must be structured according to the headings provided.
• If you intend to submit your application to the Tri-Agency Interdisciplinary Peer Review committee, please note that reviewers will take into account specific considerations when reviewing applications submitted to it. Applications reviewed in this committee will undergo a unique peer review process, and be evaluated against specific evaluation criteria (please see Section 5. Description of Evaluation Criteria of peer review guide) within the context of the Project Grant Adjudication Criteria and Interpretation Guidelines. For additional details, please consult the Committee Peer Review Guide.

Within the allotted page limits, your research proposal may include text, tables, charts, figures and photographs and must be attached as a PDF document.

In order to ensure that all applicants have exactly the same amount of space to write their research proposals, you must adhere to the formatting requirements in the Acceptable Application Formats and PDF Attachments. CIHR reserves the right to withdraw your application if it does not meet these requirements.

All Nominated Principal Applicants must attach the Summary of Progress along with their application. The page limits for the Summary of Progress are:

• Summary of Progress submitted in English – 2 pages;
• Summary of Progress submitted in French – 2.5 pages

ResearchNet will allow an attachment with 3 pages. Any content beyond the limits stated above will be removed with no further notification to the Nominated Principal Applicant.

This document gives you a chance to describe how your application fits within your overarching program of research. Write a short narrative that explains your overall research progress to date. Do not use this section as an extension to your research proposal; it is not additional space to support the specific aims or hypotheses of your current proposed project. Figures, tables and hyperlinks must not be included and formatting requirements as noted above must be respected.

The Summary of Progress should include:

• Progress/Productivity/Impact: Outline and contextualize any activities, contributions, and impacts that support your current application;
• ECRs: Write a narrative about your intended program of research, relevant research undertaken as a trainee and independent investigator, other sources of funds held (e.g., awards, start-up funding) and how the requested funds will advance your research activities. If this is a new application, provide a narrative explaining how you came to submit this application, or where this current proposal stems from. If you have held a Foundation Grant, contextualize your Foundation Grant;
• Impacts on progress of research: At your discretion and where relevant, outline the impact of specific factors (e.g., leave history, career stage, family responsibilities, pandemic impact or other circumstances) on your research progress;
• Budget requested in relation to overall funding held currently or pending: Contextualize the current application and proposed budget in relation to your overall program of research and funding history. Include all relevant funding currently held and pending. You should illustrate clearly to reviewers why you need the requested funds, how they are distinct from any funds you currently hold, and how they will advance your research.

CIHR is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which recognizes the need to improve the ways in which the outputs of research are evaluated. Reviewers are instructed to consider a range of contributions (e.g., research publications, reports, books, guidelines, datasets, code, tools, training and mentorship, volunteerism, community engagement, standards, software and commercialized products) and impacts (e.g., influence on policy and practice, health outcomes, societal outcomes, and distinctions-based, meaningful and culturally safe health research) in their assessments. Reviewers are also instructed to consider the context of the applicant (e.g., leave history, career stage, area(s) of research, experiential knowledge, diverse career paths, family responsibilities, pandemic impact) and how it may have affected their progress.

Based on the criteria below, each application will be rated by three reviewers on a scale of 0.0 to 4.9, with 4.9 being the highest possible rating.

When interpreting the adjudication criteria, keep in mind that while your research proposal may envision a basic/mechanistic impact (as opposed to translational impact), this sort of discovery science is just as important as applied research. When making the case for how your proposal will significantly advance your area of research, remember that impact does not only mean near-future clinical relevance.

Criterion 1 - Concept

Sub-criterion 1.1: Significance and Impact of Research

This criterion is intended to assess the quality of what you are proposing, the value of the anticipated project contributions, and any advances in health-related knowledge, health care, health systems, and/or health outcomes.

• Is the project idea creative?
  • The project idea is among the best formulated ideas in its field, stemming from new, incremental, innovative, and/or high-risk lines of inquiry; new or adapted research in basic science, or health care, or health systems or health outcomes. When applicable, knowledge translation/commercialization approaches/methodologies should be considered, as well as opportunities to apply research findings nationally and internationally.
• Is the rationale of the project idea sound?
  • The project rationale is based on a logical integration of concepts.
• Are the overall goals and objectives of the project well-defined?
  • The goal states the purpose of the project, and what the project is ultimately expected to achieve.
  • The objectives clearly define the proposed lines of inquiry and/or activities required to meet the goal.
  • The proposed project outputs (i.e., the anticipated results of the project) are clearly described and aligned to the objectives.
• Are the anticipated project contributions likely to advance basic health-related knowledge, or health care, or health systems or health outcomes?
  • The context and needs (issues and/or gaps) of the project are clearly described.
  • The anticipated contribution(s) are clearly described, and should be substantive and relevant in relation to the context of the issues or gaps.
  • The anticipated contribution(s) are realistic, i.e., directly stemming from the project outputs, as opposed to marginally related.

Indigenous Health Research (IHR) committee considerations: The proposed research must be relevant to First Nations, Inuit and/or Métis priorities and have the potential to produce valued outcomes from the perspective of First Nations, Inuit and/or Métis participants and Indigenous Peoples more broadly.

Criterion 2 – Assessment of Feasibility

Sub-criterion 2.1: Approaches and Methods

This sub-criterion is intended to assess the quality of your project's design and plan, including how and when the project will be completed.

• Are the approaches and methods appropriate for delivering the proposed output(s) and achieve the proposed contribution(s) to advancing health-related knowledge, health care, health systems, and/or health outcomes?
  • The research and/or knowledge translation/commercialization approaches, methods, and/or strategies should be well-defined and justified in terms of being appropriate to accomplish the objectives of the project.
  • Is sex (as a biological variable) and/or gender (as a socio-cultural factor) taken into account in the research design, methods, analysis and interpretation, and/or dissemination of findings?
  • Opportunities to maximize project contributions to advance health-related knowledge, health care, health systems and/or health outcomes should be proactively sought and planned for, but may also arise unexpectedly.
• Are the timelines and related deliverables of the project realistic?
  • Timelines for the project should be appropriate in relation to the proposed project activities. Key milestones and deliverables should be aligned with the objectives of the project, and be feasible given the duration of the project.
• Does the proposal identify potential challenges and appropriate mitigation strategies?
  • Critical scientific, technical, or organizational challenges should be identified, and a realistic plan to tackle these potential risks should be described. An exhaustive list is not expected.

Indigenous Health Research (IHR) committee considerations: In addition to demonstrating scientific excellence (Western, Indigenous, or both), the proposed research approaches and methods must respect Indigenous values and ways of knowing and sharing, and abide by the Tri-Council Policy Statement Chapter 9: Research Involving the First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples of Canada and/or Indigenous partnering community/organizational ethical guidelines, or else clearly explain why and which other guidelines have been developed and agreed upon with the study governance body.

Sub-criterion 2.2: Expertise, Experience and Resources

You should provide an estimate of the number of hours per week (contribution) for each applicant working on the project.

This sub-criterion is intended to assess the appropriateness of the complement of expertise, experience, and resources among the applicants (Nominated Principal Applicant, Principal Applicant(s) and Co-Applicant(s)), and their institutions/organizations, as it relates to the ability to collectively deliver on the objectives of the project.

It is the responsibility of the Nominated Principal Applicant to ensure the proposed project is poised for success.

• Does the applicant(s) bring the appropriate expertise and experience to lead and deliver the proposed outputs and achieve the proposed contribution(s)?
  • The applicant(s) should demonstrate the combined expertise and experience needed to execute the project (i.e., deliver the proposed outputs as well as achieve the proposed contribution(s)). The roles and responsibilities of each applicant should be clearly described, and linked to the objectives of the project.
• Is there an appropriate level of engagement and/or commitment from the applicant(s)?
  • The level of engagement (e.g., time and other commitments) of each applicant should be appropriate for the roles and responsibilities described.
• Is the environment (academic institution and/or other organization) appropriate to enable the conduct and success of the project?
  • Project applicants should have access to the appropriate infrastructure, facilities, support personnel, equipment, and/or supplies to:
    • Carry out their respective roles; and,
    • As a collective, manage and deliver the proposed output(s), and achieve the proposed contribution(s).
• Does the applicant adequately demonstrate productivity, progress and impact of their research program?
  • In their Summary of Progress, the applicant should:
    • Outline and contextualize the most relevant activities, contributions and impacts; and
    • Demonstrate their productivity as it relates to the ability to deliver on the objectives of the project.

Indigenous Health Research (IHR) Committee considerations: Appropriateness of the team based on their overall scientific experience (Western, Indigenous, or both) and skills as well as their Indigenous community-based research experience, track record, and relevance of past experience, including expertise related to Indigenous health research.

The only permitted attachment is the list of references cited within your application (e.g., bibliographic information) in a PDF format. A standard reference style is required, and individual publications (or any other supporting information) must not be included

If you are resubmitting an unsuccessful application, you may provide a response to previous reviews from a previous Project Grant competition(s), regardless of how you answered the question "Is this a resubmission of an unsuccessful application to the same Funding Opportunity?" in the Details subtask of the Enter Proposal Information task at registration. You do not have to respond to all the comments in the reviews; only those that are relevant to your revised application. Please see "What reviews must be included when responding to previous reviews?" in the Project Grant Competition FAQs for further explanation on what reviews must be included when responding to previous reviews.

If you choose to upload a response to previous reviews, you must include all the reviews and Scientific Officer Notes (if available) received in that round of submission. If you do not attach the previous reviews and Scientific Officer Notes (if available) from the round(s) of submission to which you are responding, CIHR will remove your response to previous reviews with no further notification to the Nominated Principal Applicant.

The page limits for this section are:

• Response to Previous Reviews:
  • Response to previous reviews submitted in English – 2 pages;
  • Response to previous reviews submitted in French – 2.5 pages
• Previous Reviews:
  • Up to 99 pages in both official languages

ResearchNet will allow an attachment with 3 pages for Response to Previous Reviews. Any content beyond the limits stated above will be removed with no further notification to the Nominated Principal Applicant.

Providing your response to previous reviews, and previous reviews and Scientific Officer Notes (if available) in your application on ResearchNet:

• Response to Previous Reviews:
  • Upload the PDF by selecting the Response to Previous Reviews dropdown option under the Attachments subtask. Note that your response to previous reviews cannot be embedded into the sections of the reviews.
• Previous Reviews:
  • To access your previous reviews:
    • Go to Check Application Status on ResearchNet and click on View Results/Reviews.
    • Choose the link View/Print All Review Documents for Application [application name].
    • Download and save the SO Notes (if available) and Reviewer's Report [Committee member].
  • Combine the previous reviews and SO Notes (if available) into a single PDF.
  • Upload the PDF to your current application by selecting the Previous Reviews dropdown option under the Attachments subtask.

Do not include the Notice of Recommendation (NOR), the Notice of Decision (NOD), or the results letter. Your response should not reference any other documents as reviewers will not have access to them. Of note, your application may not be reviewed by reviewers who reviewed it previously.