CIHR Instructions for Scientific Officers (SOs)

[ PDF (27.3 KB) ]

  • Scientific Officers (SOs) 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".
  • SOs are 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).
  • SOs support the Chair in his/her role during the peer review committee meeting.
  • SOs do not rate applications or vote during the committee meeting.

Roles and Responsibilities of the Scientific Officer

  1. Suggest 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. Work with the Chair 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 SO is in conflict with an application, the Chair is responsible for the assignment.
  3. Take official notes of committee discussions for each application (SO Notes), which are sent to applicants along with the internal and external (if applicable) reviewer reports.
  4. Read back the SO Notes for validation and to obtain further possible input from the committee members before the consensus is reached and the committee votes. Also read back the summary of changes to the budget and term, and ensure that issues of ethics and other concerns that have been flagged for the attention of CIHR are recorded (if applicable).
  5. Finalize and post SO Notes directly to ResearchNet or send them to the Program Delivery Coordinator at the end of the meeting or no later than 5 working days following the meeting. The applicant will receive the SO notes as they are submitted by the SO. Note: CIHR will not edit or modify the SO Notes.
  6. When SO's term is nearing completion, suggest potential future SOs and provide support to the new SO during the ensuing transition (for standing peer review committees only).

NOTE: CIHR has a Mentorship Program for new Scientific Officers for all grants committees. If you are interested in participating as a mentor or mentee, please contact your program delivery coordinator.

Peer Review Committee Meeting Best Practices

Before the meeting

  • Read the sample SO Notes provided at the end of this document and any SO Notes from your own grant applications.
  • Prepare by reading the summaries to look for words and terms that are unfamiliar.
  • Prepare templates for each application in a word document. Prepare folders to help organize which applications have been reviewed.
  • Read reviews submitted on ResearchNet ahead of time and discuss with Chair.
  • Discuss applications that have a significant discrepancy in initial scores with the Chair.

At the meeting

  • Explain how the consensus score was reached by capturing the tone of the committee discussion. Do not repeat information found in the reviews.
  • Use stock phrases to describe the tone of the discussions. Use qualifiers to discriminate between applications (great; difficult; ambiguous; etc.)
  • If you don't agree with the reviewers you can challenge them but if the committee does not agree, you must report in a neutral way. The SO is not a voting member of the committee.
  • Read the SO notes out loud to the committee before the consensus rating is determined. The committee can help you make adjustments if necessary.
  • Include any comments on the budget in the SO notes, read revisions to the committee.
  • You can recommend that the applicant seeks tutoring from colleagues in order to refine his/her grantsmanship.

After the meeting

  • Finalize the SO notes and submit on ResearchNet.

Scientific Officer Notes (SO Notes)

  • Purpose: to inform the applicant what the determining factors were in the evaluation of the application by the committee, and how the budget was determined. The SO notes provide the applicant with insight into the committee discussion of the application.
  • The SO notes should be clear and concise, typically no more than one page, providing objective and constructive feedback to the applicant.

The SO notes should include the following:

  • The major strength(s), weakness(es) of the application;
  • The factors and issues that had the greatest impact on the evaluation, in terms of the evaluation criteria for the funding opportunity (see also the CIHR Peer Review Manual for Grant Applications, section 7.2);
  • Aspects of the committee discussion that were not captured in the internal reviewer written report;
  • Resolution of reviewer disagreement (which view expressed in the reviewer's reports did the committee favour?);
  • Encouragement or discouragement in relation to resubmission, and suggestions for improving the proposal for resubmission, if appropriate; and
  • Explanation of budget and/or term reductions. Absence of a rationale for budget cuts or term reductions is unfair to the applicant, and a frequent cause of complaints about the review process.

The SO notes must not include:

  1. A summary of the proposal;
  2. A repetition of internal or external reviews;
  3. A recommendation for funding;
  4. The rating of the grant (number or descriptor, since after averaging of the ratings of individual committee members, the outcome may be different from the consensus rating);
  5. The suggestion of an alternate Peer Review Committee; and
  6. Comments on eligibility of the proposal for the competition.

Example of a Pillar I/II SO Note:

Strengths: Applicant has good publication record in last 5 years including a paper in Nature Cell Biology. Applicant has been instrumental in furthering our understanding in this area and currently holds 3 research grants, including a CIHR operating grant. Ambitious proposal is supported by publication and preliminary data. Proposed research is innovative and addresses an important question.

Weaknesses: Proposal has several instances of inappropriate experimental design particularly over-expression strategies. Applicant needs to characterize multiple transgenic lines and demonstrate that the effects are observed over a range of gene expression levels. There was concern that the chosen transgene promoter is also expressed in inappropriate tissues. The applicant mentions oocyte microinjections as an alternate strategy but does not explain how this would be done. Assumption was made that peak expression of key regulatory proteins during the late stages of oocyte development implies that this is the critical phase for their functional effects but there was no compelling evidence for this idea. In Aim 3 there were similar concerns about over-expression creating non-specific protein:protein interactions. Aim 4 was considered a good idea but upon discussion the committee raised serious concerns about the appropriateness of the mouse model selected to study the interactions in question. Further details on these weaknesses and possible alternative strategies that could have been considered by the applicant are detailed in the internal reviewer reports.

Lay abstract: Contained many scientific terms so that the objectives and benefits of this research are not accessible to the general public.

Budget: Expenditures on gene expression microarrays were duplicated for several mouse models and could have been done in tandem. Insufficient justification for study of some of the mouse models so recommend reduction of $45K in expendables and elimination of one technician salary. Term 3Y.

Example of a Pillar III/IV SO Note:

Strengths
This is an application submitted by an experienced team that is well situated to carry out the proposed work. The central question being addressed is an important Canadian public health issue. Very nice literature review and the rationale for study is strong. Protocol is well written and objectives are clear. A notable strength of the study is the focus on modifiable risk factors.

Weaknesses
The study is probably under-powered and only powered to assess main effects and this is dependent on the anticipated 80% response percentage in the cases that may be overly optimistic. A 60% response percentage may be a more realistic estimate. It was also somewhat unclear how the power calculations were conducted. There were a number of questions regarding the data collection instruments and the measures that will be estimated from these instruments. A number of other issues were raised, including:

  1. The rational for using multiple comparisons could be better explained.
  2. The added contribution of the qualitative interviews was not clear.
  3. No discussion of project limitations.

The panel liked this project but felt that the methodology issues noted above needed to be addressed. The investigators are encouraged to consider a plan for knowledge translation as the public would be very interested in this type of research.

Budget
Stipends for graduate students were increased to standard CIHR levels.

Supplemental content (right column)