In performing peer reviews, review teams must complete all relevant checklists and checklists issued by the AICPA Peer Review Board in a professional manner. Failure to do so may cause a presumption that the review has not been performed in conformity with the Standards governing the Program. We recommend using Chrome or Firefox as your browser for the best user experience.
Get the latest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader to ensure compatibility. What's New? To keep it current, the PRPM is periodically updated with new or revised checklists and other materials due to changes in technical and professional standards, policies or procedures.
Monitor quarterly Reviewer Alerts for further information. Assistance : For assistance with peer review materials, please email prptechnical aicpa. The requested resources, together with any existing resources, should be adequate to financially support the full scope of the project. Partner contributions, if applicable required for partnered applications , should be considered when reviewing support for the proposed project.
Partner contributions will be outlined in letters of contribution and in the budget module. Reviewers may recommend that the budget remains as requested or recommend a reduction.
Reviewers will provide their written reviews with a mentorship lens. At the time of application submission, the research proposal must also explicitly describe engagement with the community in relation to the research. Applications that do not fit with the IHR committee mandate will be reviewed by another discipline-based committee.
All applications will be discussed at the committee meeting to allow for the development of an explicit mentoring approach to enable all promising Indigenous health research to continue to evolve. The objective of the Iterative Peer Review Process is to allow applicants whose applications have been deemed excellent, the opportunity to provide minor clarifications that would see the application improve to become outstanding. A randomized controlled trial RCT is an experiment in which investigators randomly assign eligible human subjects or other units of study e.
The results are analyzed by comparing outcomes in the groups. Applications involving a RCT are accepted and encouraged where appropriate based on scientific and methodological grounds. Irrespective of the suggested peer review committee, evaluation of all applications containing a RCT as a major component will need to consider the specific RCT evaluation criteria.
Please consult the RCT Evaluation Criteria and Headings website for detailed information on the specific criteria that need to be taken into account by the committees when evaluating RCT applications.
Please consult the Commercialization Projects website for detailed information on the specific criteria that need to be taken into account by the Commercialization committee when evaluating applications. While the three funding opportunities Insight Grant, Project Grant, Discovery Horizons Grant have distinct timelines and processes, this pilot will bring relevant applications together in one shared interdisciplinary peer review committee. As such, applications reviewed in the TIR committee will undergo a unique peer review process , and be evaluated against specific evaluation criteria please see Section 5.
Customized training will also be provided ahead of undertaking the peer review task. The prime responsibility of a peer review committee is the evaluation of applications submitted to a competition by using CIHR's rating scale. The committee will also recommend the grant term and a budget sufficient to support the full proposed research.
It is important that committees follow defined procedures in order to function in a consistent manner. Of note, any committee member who has a conflict of interest with an application as defined in the section 3. The Chair and CIHR staff are responsible for monitoring conflicts and for resolving areas of uncertainty.
Only a portion of the Project Grant applications submitted to a competition will ultimately be funded. Therefore, it is important that during the face-to-face meeting, committee members focus their discussions on the most competitive applications to ensure and achieve an accurate comparative evaluation.
To help support this goal, a streamlining process is used to remove applications that are not competitive from the discussion process, thereby allowing committee members more time to judge and discriminate between potentially successful applications and helping to ensure that the most deserving applications receive funding. Applicants whose proposals are streamlined still benefit from the review process, as they receive the written reviews from the assigned reviewers but no detailed Scientific Officer notes.
Reviewers provide their initial ratings on ResearchNet in advance of the committee meeting. They also indicate if each of their assigned applications is competitive top or non-competitive bottom in its current form.
The applications in the competitive top group should include those applications considered to be the most deserving of being funded. The proportion of applications deemed competitive or non-competitive top or bottom , may vary depending on the overall quality of the applications reviewed. This information is used to determine which applications are eligible for streamlining. All the committee members will be informed of the applications identified prior to the committee meeting as eligible for streamlining.
If there are no objections from any committee members, these applications will be streamlined. If there is an objection to an application being streamlined, it will be discussed by the committee. Note that some of the streamlined applications may have an initial average rating above 3. During the course of the committee meeting, additional applications may also be identified as eligible for streamlining. If an application is not discussed, the applicant will receive all the reviewers' reports, but the Scientific Officer notes will only carry notification of the decision to streamline.
Committee members do not vote on the rating of a streamlined application; the final rating is calculated as the average of the ratings from the assigned reviewers. The assessment of applications begins with the assigned reviewers announcing their initial ratings to one decimal place. The reviewers may revise their initial ratings in light of the committee discussion. The budget requested will not be factored into the scientific assessment and rating of the applications. However, CIHR will seek the recommendation from the reviewers on the budgets and terms requested.
For additional information, please see section 4. Issues related to ethics, eligibility, human pluripotent stem cell research and other concerns need to be flagged for CIHR's attention.
The rating should not be influenced by such factors. A committee debrief provides an opportunity for CIHR staff to address any concerns of the committee members and to record feedback on the peer review process as part of CIHR's ongoing efforts to maintain an effective and high quality peer review system. Upon completion of the committee meeting, for all applications discussed, CIHR will collect the final ratings and recommendations on funding level and grant term from all the committee members.
This information will be used for funding decision-making. All applicants will first receive a Notice of Recommendation, along with a copy of all reviews and the Scientific Officer notes for the applications discussed by the committee.
After, a letter of decision and a Notice of Decision will be sent indicating whether or not their proposals were approved, and if approved, with information on the allocated funds.
Applications that have been flagged for special attention for follow-up by CIHR staff are marked as "pending" until the applicants provide required information. Invitations to members of the health research community to join specific Project Grant Peer Review Committees PRCs are based on their area s of expertise, experience in grant writing, peer review process, and in consultation with the committee Chairs and Scientific Officers.
The Chairs also have a role in the selection of Scientific Officers. The committee membership as a whole considers one or more of the following aspects:. The Chair will:. Reviewers are committee members assigned to review one or more applications for which they have declared expertise and are not in conflict with.
Applications are assigned to three reviewers who participate in their rating and submit in-depth written reports that are provided to the applicants. They present their reviews at the committee meeting where they lead the discussion, and vote during the meeting. They also participate in the discussion and rating of other applications before the committee for which they are not in conflict.
Introduction The purpose of this manual is to provide information on the policies, procedures and processes for the peer review of applications submitted to the Project Grant competition, as well as to outline the roles and responsibilities of peer review committee members. Peer Review Committees PRCs are responsible for: Evaluating individual applications; Rating each application; Discussing applications at the committee meeting; and, Recommending a budget and term to support the proposed research if the application is approved.
Feel for any reason unable to provide an impartial review of the application. Project Grant Application Review Process 4. Formatting Although the applicants can present their research proposals in a free form format, the reviewers assess the application based on the specific adjudication criteria outlined in Section 4. Summary of Progress Reviewers must also assess the Summary of Progress.
CV s Reviewers are asked to review the applicant s CV s. Other Application Material optional to review Additional attachments including letters of support, questionnaires, surveys, and up to five publications from the last five years, may be uploaded under Other Application Material task in ResearchNet as outlined in the Application instructions.
Rating Scale To ensure consistency, reviewers must adhere to the following rating scale: Descriptor Range Definition Outstanding 4. Any short-comings are minimal. Excellent 4. Good 3. Fair 3. Major revisions are required. If an application has merits but also has many limitations. Poor 0. Summary of the Research Proposal Reviewers provide a summary of the project to demonstrate their understanding of the research work that is being proposed. Rating In ResearchNet, reviewers provide their overall initial rating for the application to one decimal place in advance of the peer review committee meeting.
Reviewers are encouraged to provide strengths and weaknesses for each evaluation criterion; strengths and weaknesses that contributed to the application rating must be clearly articulated , as they will be used to: Provide the other reviewers assigned to the application with a justification for the ratings given to the application; and, Provide applicants with feedback Budget Recommendation Reviewers are required to verify the requested budget and justification.
Budget adjustment recommendations must be justified and be specific to item and amount. For more information please see section 4. Other Considerations Reviewers will also be asked to flag applications in ResearchNet that involve any of the issues outlined below.
Ethics forms are not required as part of the application. However, reviewers may flag specific issues, such as the use of human participants, animals, human tissues or hazardous material, or research that involve Indigenous Peoples, if they feel they have not been adequately addressed.
Human pluripotent stem cell research: Applications recommended for funding that involve the use of human stem cells must also be reviewed by the Stem Cell Oversight Committee SCOC. It is essential that the use of these stem cells be also assessed by reviewers. It is the responsibility of all peer reviewers to familiarize themselves in advance of the committee meeting with the applications to be assessed by their committee, as this will facilitate discussions at the face-to-face meeting.
Criterion 1. Concept Significance and Impact of the Research Criterion 2. Feasibility Approaches and Methods Expertise, Experience and Resources Reviewers should take into consideration the career stage, research field, progress and productivity, and institution setting of the applicants when assessing each criterion.
Evaluation of all applications containing a Randomized Controlled Trial RCT as a major component will need to consider the specific RCT evaluation criteria in their assessment, irrespective of the assigned peer review committee section 4. Evaluation of applications reviewed in the Commercialization committee will need to include the assessment of both the Research and Technical plan and the Commercialization plan according to specific review criteria section 4.
For the details on the peer review process and description of the evaluation criteria, please consult the Committee Peer Review Guide. Is the project idea creative? The project idea is among the best formulated ideas in its field, stemming from new, incremental, innovative, or high-risk lines of inquiry; new or adapted research in basic science, or health care, or health systems or health outcomes.
Is the rationale of the project idea sound? The project rationale is based on a logical integration of concepts. Are the overall goals and objectives of the project well-defined? The overall goal and objectives of the project are well-defined and clear.
The goal states the purpose of the project, and what the project is ultimately expected to achieve. The proposed project outputs i. Are the anticipated project contributions likely to advance basic health-related knowledge, or health care, or health systems or health outcomes?
The anticipated contribution s e. The anticipated contribution s are realistic, i. Considerations This sub-criterion is not intended to assess feasibility of the project, expertise of the team or the potential of success. These will be assessed under Criterion 2: Feasibility Research should focus on addressing an issue e. Global Health Research Projects that have a global health research focus, or include international collaborations, are eligible for support through the Project Grant program.
Are the timelines and related deliverables of the project realistic? Timelines for the project should be appropriate in relation to the proposed project activities. Key milestones and deliverables should be aligned with the objectives of the project, and be feasible given the duration of the project. Does the proposal identify potential challenges and appropriate mitigation strategies?
Critical scientific, technical, or organizational challenges should be identified, and a realistic plan to tackle these potential risks should be described. An exhaustive list is not expected.
Sex and Gender Considerations if applicable Evidence demonstrates that biological and social differences between women and men contribute to differences in health risks, health services use, health system interaction and health outcomes.
Other Considerations Applications submitted to the Project Grant competition may include an integrated knowledge translation approach or may have a knowledge translation focus, with at least one knowledge-user and one researcher.
Does the applicant s bring the appropriate expertise and experience to lead and deliver the proposed output s , and to achieve the proposed contribution s?
The applicant s should demonstrate the combined expertise and experience needed to execute the project i. The roles and responsibilities of each applicant should be clearly described, and linked to the objectives of the project. The level of engagement e.
Does the applicant adequately demonstrate productivity and progress of their research program? In their Summary of Progress, the applicant should: Outline the most relevant accomplishments; and Demonstrate their productivity. Indigenous Health Research IHR Committee Considerations Appropriateness of the team based on their overall scientific experience non-Indigenous, Indigenous, or both and skills as well as their Indigenous community-based research experience, track record, relevance of past experience, including expertise related to Indigenous Health Research.
Other Considerations The required complement of expertise will vary by project. Is the requested funding appropriate to support the project?
Is it realistic and well justified? The requested resources should be adequate to financially support the full scope of the project. Reviewers are asked to consider the proposed budget of the project, and to provide a justified recommendation as to whether the budget should be: Accepted, as described; or, Reduced by a specific dollar amount total.
Consider other sources of funds applied for or received Is the funding requested distinct from that currently held? Is the rationale for needed funding clear and complete? Procedure Prior to the committee meeting Reviewers provide their initial ratings on ResearchNet in advance of the committee meeting.
At the committee meeting All the committee members will be informed of the applications identified prior to the committee meeting as eligible for streamlining. CIHR reserves the right to determine the final amount awarded.
Before the committee meeting , the Chair will: Suggests names of potential committee members Scientific Officers and reviewers to CIHR during both the formation of the review committee and the assignment of applications, as required; this could also include identifying potential external referees to fill expertise gaps; Works with the Scientific Officers and CIHR staff to assign applications to specific peer review committees and to select reviewers for each application; Works with CIHR staff to establish a review sequence or a meeting agenda, and to identify the eligible applications for streamlining.
Before the committee meeting , the Scientific Officers will: Suggest names of potential committee reviewers to CIHR during the formation of the review committee, as well as during the assignment of applications, as required; this could include identifying potential reviewers to fill specific expertise gaps; Work with the Chair and CIHR staff to assign applications to specific peer review committees and to select reviewers for each application; Work with the Chair and CIHR staff to establish a review sequence or a meeting agenda, and to identify the eligible applications for streamlining; and, Work with the Chair and CIHR staff to manage conflicts of interest of committee members.
These concerns should not influence the rating or budget recommendations, unless they bear on the scientific merit of the applications.
0コメント