Compare to the live page

MainContentStart

InstanceBeginEditable name="contentMain"

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.

Transition Stage

Timelines

Piloting Stage

Winter 2013 – Spring 2016

Phase-in Stage

Summer 2014 – Summer 2016

Phase-out Stage

Spring 2015 – TBD (optimal grantee intake is achieved)

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

Competition/Pilot

Timelines

OOGP 201303

Winter 2012 – Spring 2013

OOGP 201309

Spring 2013 – Winter 2014

OOGP 201403

Winter 2013 – Spring 2014

Transitional OOGP 201503

Fall 2014 – Spring 2015

Remote Review Pilot #1

Winter 2012 – Spring 2013

Remote Review Pilot #2

Spring 2013 – Winter 2014

Adjudication Pilot #1

Spring 2013 – Fall 2013

Adjudication Pilot #2

Winter 2014 – Summer 2014

Matching and Assignment Pilot

Winter 2013-Fall 2014 (up to 2015)

Foundation Scheme "Live Pilot" #1

Summer 2014 – Spring 2015

Foundation Scheme "Live Pilot" #2

Summer 2015 – Spring 2016

Foundation Scheme

Summer 2016 – Spring 2017

Project Scheme

Winter 2016 – Summer 2016

Project Scheme

Summer 2016 – Winter 2017

Back to report

InstanceEndEditable

Date modified:

InstanceBeginEditable name="modifiedDate"

2012-12-20

InstanceEndEditable