Peer Review Committee Members Role

Peer review committee members are invited to serve on a committee for a specific funding opportunity. The type of review is determined based on the program and committee membership will vary accordingly. Individual committee members are selected for their research excellence, as reflected by their ability to obtain ongoing external peer-reviewed funding, and for their breadth of knowledge and maturity of judgment. For more details, please refer to the Procedure for Selection of Peer Review Committee Members and Peer Review Membership Guidelines.

A committee in its entirety should:

• represent all research areas to evaluate all applications;
• appropriately represent the Canadian health research community;
• have the capacity to review in both official languages.

Peer Review at CIHR is typically conducted using one of the following types of review:

1. Structured review - where reviewers assign scores to a set of predetermined criteria; and,
2. Unstructured review - where reviewers "weigh" the evaluation criteria as they see fit and rank the applications as a committee.

For more information on Peer Review types, please refer to the Types of Review at CIHR.

The table below provides a general overview of membership on peer review committees.
Note that not all peer review committees will have representation of all roles listed below.

		Peer Review Committee type
	Roles	Structured	Unstructured
1	Chair	As required
2	Scientific Officer
3.1	Internal Reviewer (Unstructured Review)
	a) Reader
	b) Teleconference Reviewer
	c) Knowledge User		As required
3.2	Internal Reviewer (Structured, Remote Review)
3.3	External Reviewer	As required
4	CIHR Staff
5	Observer
6	Community Reviewer

Please review the Instructions for Committee Members.

1 Chair

The committee Chair is directly responsible to CIHR for ensuring that the peer review committee functions smoothly, effectively and objectively, according to CIHR's policies. He/she establishes a positive, constructive, fair-minded environment in which the funding applications are to be evaluated. The Chair (along with the Scientific Officer) fulfills an oversight role and does not rate applications. His/her responsibilities include:

• working with the SO and CIHR staff to select committee members and then assign each application to reviewers;
• working with CIHR staff to manage conflicts of interest;
• ensuring the involvement of the entire committee with recommendations for each application;
• working with the SO to summarize the discussion of each application before the rating;
• guiding the committee to a consensus rating.

Under exceptional circumstances, CIHR staff may assume the role of Chair during the committee meeting.

2 Scientific Officer (SO)

In addition to the duties shared with the Chair, as described above, the Scientific Officer:

• supports the Chair in his/her role during the peer review committee meeting;
• takes notes of the discussion as it is proceeding (SO notes), which will be sent to applicants with their review documents; and,
• ensures that issues of ethics, budgetary adjustments and other concerns that have been flagged for the attention of CIHR are recorded for each application.

Under exceptional circumstances, CIHR staff may assume the role of Scientific Officer during the committee meeting.

3 Peer Reviewers

CIHR uses the terms "internal" and "external" reviewer to distinguish reviewer roles, as described below:

3.1 Internal Reviewers (Unstructured review)

Internal reviewers for unstructured review are committee members who attend the peer review committee meeting, normally in person but occasionally by teleconference. For funding opportunities that use this process:

• each reviewer declares their conflicts of interest;
• each application is assigned to a minimum of two internal reviewers for assessment;
• reviewers submit their scores and in-depth reviews prior to the committee meeting using ResearchNet;
• reviewers present their reviews at the committee meeting where they lead the discussion. They also participate in the discussion and rating of all other applications before the committee for which they are not in conflict.

a) Reader
Internal reviewers are also assigned other applications as "readers". Readers are responsible only for reading an application and are not required to submit a written review; they serve as a discussant in the committee and aid in reaching a consensus rating.

b) Teleconference Reviewer
On occasion, a reviewer with a very specific expertise may be called on to review a small number of applications, typically by teleconference. These reviewers only take part in the discussion of the application(s) they have been assigned, and they rate the application(s) by e-mail to maintain confidentiality.

c) Knowledge Users
Knowledge Users are committee members who attend meetings that use Merit Review and they play the same role as Internal Reviewers.

Knowledge Users are defined by CIHR as: an individual who is likely to be able to use the knowledge generated through research to make informed decisions about health policies, programs and/or practices. A Knowledge User's level of engagement in the research process may vary in intensity and complexity depending on the nature of the research and his/her information needs. A Knowledge User can be, but is not limited to, a practitioner, policy-maker, educator, decision-maker, health care administrator, community leader, or an individual in a health charity, patient group, private sector organization, or media outlet.

3.2 Internal Reviewers (Structured, remote review)

Internal Reviewers for structured review have similar responsibilities to those for unstructured review (section 3.1). However, reviewers of programs that use structured review do not participate in a face-to-face meeting to discuss the applications. For funding opportunities that use this meeting format:

• CIHR staff assigns each application to a minimum of two reviewers for assessment;
• each reviewer declares their conflicts of interest so that CIHR staff may re-assign applications if necessary;
• reviewers submit their scores and reviews to CIHR staff by a predetermined deadline date using ResearchNet;
• CIHR staff compiles scores and determines if there are discrepancies:
  • reviewers re-review applications with scoring discrepancies;
  • if there are scoring discrepancies after the second review, a third reviewer is assigned to the application and submits a review.

3.3 External Reviewers

In certain cases, a review may be solicited from someone who is not a member of the peer review committee, in order to fill a gap in expertise. The external reviewer provides a written assessment but does not attend the meeting. They may also provide an initial rating of the application but this is not used in the calculation of the final rating.

4 CIHR Staff

CIHR staff are typically represented by a Deputy Director and a Program Delivery Coordinator, who are responsible for ensuring the integrity and quality of the peer review process. CIHR staff:

• are involved in the assignment of applications to peer reviewers;
• provide advice and guidance to the committee on CIHR policies;
• for unstructured review:
  • keep notes on procedural aspects of the committee's functions;
  • record the consensus rating and, if applicable, the budget recommendations made by the committee for each application;
  • record concerns raised by the committee on issues requiring later attention by staff, for example, ethics, eligibility, etc.;
  • record feedback about the committee as a whole and the meeting process.

5 Observers

Occasionally, individuals are permitted to observe peer review committee meetings. Observers are typically CIHR Institute staff or representatives from partner organizations who have no funding decision-making authority for that competition. Observers must adhere to the same Policy on Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality as all committee members, and they do not contribute in any way to the review process or discussions surrounding the applications (including any discussions that arise during breaks).

6 Community Reviewers

The Community Reviewer is an individual who is not currently an academic or researcher, but who has a demonstrated interest in health and science. The Community Reviewer provides a mechanism for ensuring good communication to public stakeholders and transparency of the peer review process. He/she does not rate applications but comments on the lay abstract of the application, specifically the extent to which the intent and importance of the proposed research is well explained and in a language clear to members of the general public. He/she provides written comments on all lay abstracts submitted and selects 5-10 to discuss at the peer review committee meeting in order to highlight strong and weak examples. They are also invited to provide feedback to CIHR on the proceedings of the committee, such as the quality, quantity and variety of science reviewed, the structure of the discussions, the objectivity of the discussions, and any other general comments. For more information, refer to Community Reviewers: Involving the Canadian Public in the CIHR Peer Review Committees.