CIHR Instructions for Teleconference Reviewers

[ PDF (28.3 KB) ]

• Teleconference reviewers are a specific type of internal reviewer that does not attend the meeting but does provide a report and participates in the rating of the application(s) using e-mail.
• Teleconference reviewers 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 and levels of reviewer expertise are declared on ResearchNet or by documents sent by the Program Delivery Coordinator. Please complete this task in a timely manner. If you feel that your level of expertise is ”low” or “not enough expertise” for the application(s) assigned, please discuss this with the Program Delivery Coordinator as soon as possible.
• If your peer review committee is conducting e-review, the applications will be made available to you on ResearchNet. Please check for conflicts of interest again once you have received your assigned application(s). Paper copies of applications will no longer be provided.
• Applications must be treated as protected information. You must not divulge their contents to others, or use any information herein for any other purpose than peer review.
• Ensure that all Peer Review Committee review materials you use are handled safely and disposed of according to the document “Guide on Handling Documents used in Peer Review”.
• Be familiar with CIHR policies and procedures posted on ResearchNet and on the Internet.  It is also important to be familiar with the objectives of the funding opportunity (see Find Funding).

Internal Reviewer Report

• Purpose: to provide critical assessment of the application and constructive feedback to the applicant based on the objectives and evaluation criteria described in the funding opportunity.
• The review should be clear and concise, typically two to three pages, providing objective and constructive feedback to the applicant.
• The applicant will receive the review as you submit it. Do not include your score or identify yourself in the text of your review. Do not suggest an alternate Peer Review Committee.
• For detailed information, refer to the CIHR Peer Review Manual for Grant Applications.
• Post your review on ResearchNet or as otherwise specified, according to the deadlines provided with the applications usually one week before the committee meeting but no later than midnight before the committee meeting. Detailed instructions for posting your review can be found on the ResearchNet site on the Conduct Reviews page entitled “Get to know the Conduct Reviews task for Committee Members”. Once the review is submitted you will be able to view reviews submitted by other reviewers, however, the ability to edit your review will no longer be available.  If you wish to make changes to your review(s) once submitted either before or after the committee meeting, please contact your program delivery coordinator for assistance.

The internal reviewer report should include the following:

1. A brief synopsis of the proposal:
   • purpose of the proposal;
   • hypothesis to be tested, or the research questions to be answered;
   • objectives to be achieved and approach proposed; and
   • progress made to date.
2. An assessment of the proposal, based on the evaluation criteria as presented in the funding opportunity details:
   • consider all factors and the strengths or weaknesses of the applications in relation to each criteria;
   • not all factors are necessarily important to each application;
   • emphasis may be placed on specific criteria in the funding opportunity details, in order to meet funding program objectives; consider this when formulating your rating; and
   • focus your comments on the factors most relevant to your rating.
3. Comments on the budget requested and a formal recommendation, including clear and detailed reasons for any recommended budget cuts.
4. If necessary, comments on issues that you feel should be flagged (see section 6.2.7 of the CIHR Peer Review Manual for Grant Applications). These concerns should not influence the rating or budget recommendations, unless they bear on the scientific merit of the application.

Before the Committee Meeting

1. Submit the following on ResearchNet:
   • reviews (first and second reviewers only: reader does not submit reviews);
   • initial rating (you are not bound by the initial rating and can change this at anytime): see section 7.4 of the CIHR Peer Review Manual for Grant Applications; and
   • assessment of overall quality (if applicable): see section 6.2.2 of the CIHR Peer Review Manual for Grant Applications.
2. Arrange the time and date of the teleconference with the Program Delivery Coordinator.
3. Provide a telephone number and a back up number to the Program Delivery Coordinator.
4. If you are using a Government Teleconference line, the Program Delivery Coordinator will send you an e-mail with detailed information.
5. Be ready to participate 10 minutes before the arranged time. Committees may run late in discussing the application before your scheduled time. Please be patient. You should receive a phone call or e-mail if the committee is running late.

During the Teleconference at the Committee Meeting

1. The Chair will make introductions and explain the committee meeting process depending on your role as first reviewer, second reviewer or reader.
2. Presentation of reviews:
   • Before the reviews are presented, the two internal reviewers announce their initial ratings and their overall assessment of quality (“top/bottom group” assessment), to determine if the application should be streamlined;
   • Do not present the entire report to the committee; rather summarize key points and provide more detail during the discussion if required;
   • The first reviewer reads a brief synopsis of the proposal and a brief assessment of the applicant followed by the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal and comments on any issues to be flagged; and
   • The second reviewer follows, concentrating on points of agreement or disagreement, and elaborating points not addressed by the first reviewer. The second reviewer does not read his/her synopsis of the proposal or assessment of the applicant.
3. Rating of applications:
   • Following any other points from the reader and the discussion of the application by the whole committee, the Chair seeks a “consensus rating” from the two internal reviewers. The internal reviewers may revise their initial ratings as they see fit. If a consensus cannot be reached, the mean value of the ratings of the two internal reviewers is used (round up, if necessary, to obtain a single decimal point);
   • All committee members, including the two internal reviewers but excluding the Chair and Scientific Officer, then cast individual confidential votes within ± 0.5 of the consensus rating. The internal reviewers are not bound to the consensus rating. The rating assigned to the proposal is the average of these confidential votes; and
   • As a teleconference reviewer you will submit your rating by e-mail within 24 hours after your teleconference using the template provided by the Program Delivery Coordinator. Please record the consensus score and your individual vote in the e-mail.
4. Discussion of Budget, Term and Issues to be Flagged:
   • You will be asked for comments on the budget, term and issues to be flagged (see section 8 of the CIHR Peer Review Manual for Grant Applications).
   • Scientific Officer Reads the final notes:
     • At the end of the review, the Scientific Officer will read the notes summarizing the discussion of the committee.  Please make sure that you are able to hear clearly.  If you have any comments or changes, feel free to address them to the Chair or Scientific Officer before you end the call.

     After the Committee Meeting

     1. Submit your rating by e-mail to the program delivery coordinator within 24 hours after the teleconference review.