CIHR Instructions for Chairs

[ PDF (25.7 KB) ]

• Chairs must agree to abide by CIHR's Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Policy through ResearchNet or by signing and faxing back a form sent by the Program Delivery Coordinator.
• Conflicts of interest with applications are declared on ResearchNet or by documents sent by the Program Delivery Coordinator.
• Ensure that all Peer Review Committee review materials personally used are handled safely and disposed of according to the document "Guide on Handling Documents used in Peer Review".
• Become familiar with CIHR policies and procedures posted on ResearchNet and the Internet. It is also important to be familiar with the objectives of the funding opportunity (see Find Funding).
• Chairs ensure that the peer review committee functions smoothly, effectively and objectively, in accordance with CIHR's policies and procedures.
• Chairs act as a moderator to establish a positive, constructive, fair-minded environment in which research proposals are evaluated.
• Chairs fulfill an oversight role – does not rate applications or vote during the committee meeting.

Roles and Responsibilities of the Chair

Before the Committee Meeting, the Chair:

1. Suggests names to CIHR of potential committee members during the formation of the peer review committee, and during the assignment of applications if required (including potential external reviewers when specific expertise is needed).
2. Works with the Scientific Officer and CIHR staff to assign applications to specific peer review committees (if there is more than one peer review committee for the funding opportunity) and to select reviewers for each application. When the Chair is in conflict, the Scientific Officer is responsible for the reviewer assignment.
3. Works with CIHR staff to determine a review sequence or agenda and when streamlining will be employed (if applicable).
4. Works with CIHR staff to manage conflicts of interest of peer review committee members.

At the Committee Meeting, the Chair:

1. Provides opening remarks to the committee.
2. Makes introductions and explains the meeting process to teleconference members as appropriate (if applicable).
3. Ensures that all committee members in conflict with an application leave the room before discussion begins.
4. Appoints a delegate as Chair or Scientific Officer when either leaves because of conflict of interest. Whenever possible, the same individual should not occupy both roles.
5. Ensures the involvement of the entire committee in evaluating each application.
6. Ensures that opinions expressed by external reviewers are integrated into the discussion of each application for which they have been solicited.
7. Works with the Scientific Officer, as required, to summarize the discussion of each application before the consensus rating is reached.
8. Ensures that a consensus rating is reached. Encourage reviewers to use full scale. 
9. Ensures that the Community Reviewer presents lay abstract (if applicable).
10. Ensures that budget and term (if applicable) are discussed and comments are added to the Scientific Officer Notes.
11. Ensures that specific concerns of ethics and other CIHR requirements are addressed and any discussion is recorded in the SO notes.

At the end of the Committee Meeting, the Chair:

1. Ensures the re-review of one or a small number of applications if the committee feels that any applications have been treated inconsistently.
2. Sets aside adequate time to receive feedback from the committee members regarding the effectiveness and functioning of the committee.

After the Committee Meeting, the Chair:

1. Provides feedback about the meeting process, dynamics and effectiveness in a short (one page) written report or e-mail to be submitted to the Deputy Director within one week after the committee meeting.
2. Suggests names of potential future Chairs when their term is nearing completion and provides support to the new Chair during the ensuing transition (if applicable).

Peer Review Committee Meeting Best Practice

Below are a few tips and tricks that can facilitate the peer review process at committee meetings. Note, these are suggestions and may not apply to every committee.

1. Assignments - Where possible, new reviewers should be paired up with a seasoned reviewer. Use recommendations from internal reviewers to help decide if external reviewers are necessary and ask for suggestions.
2. Begin the meeting with a calibration exercise by evaluating one top, mid and bottom ranked application where there are no conflicts. This will set the scoring range for the meeting.
3. If streamlining is done as a group, do so after lunch for example. This will allow the committee to calibrate their scores and have a better sense of the quality of all applications.
4. Order of Review - review applications according to the pre-meeting score from top down can help reduce drift.
5. Prior to the review of each application, allow committee members to read the application abstract to familiarize themselves with the application discussed.
6. Reader: ask the reader to provide an initial rating especially when consensus is hard to reach.

Note:

1. All communications with the peer review committee from the Chair must include the Program Delivery Coordinator to ensure consistency with CIHR policies.
2. CIHR has a Mentorship Program for new Chairs for all grants committees. If you are interested in participating as a mentor or mentee, please contact your program delivery coordinator.