CIHR Reviewers' Guide for Strategic Master's Award program

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Policies and Considerations Impacting Peer Review
• Summary of the Peer Review Process
• Step-by-Step Instructions
  • Step 1: Identify conflicts of interests
  • Step 2: Conduct in-depth review of assigned applications
  • Step 3: Submit reviews and ratings on ResearchNet
  • Step 4: Be prepared for a re-review
• Ranking of applications
• Feedback
• Appendix A – Detailed Selection Criteria and Tips for Reviewers

Introduction

On behalf of CIHR, we would like to thank reviewers for agreeing to serve as peer review committee members. The success of the peer review process is made possible by dedicated people like you who generously give their time and expertise. Your efforts are greatly appreciated by CIHR and the scientific community.

The purpose of this document is to provide information on the policies, procedures and process for the peer review of applications submitted to the CIHR Strategic Master's Award program.

Note: As part of reviewers' engagement in peer review at CIHR, we ask reviewers to take a moment to complete or update the Reviewer Profile on ResearchNet. The Reviewer Profile has been developed as a tool to build and support reviewer expertise management. It is important to complete the First Independent Appointment section, if applicable.

Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Self-identification Questionnaire

The Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Self-identification Questionnaire aims to to collect information from applicants and peer review committee members on eight identity dimensions, including new questions on sexual orientation and population group. This new information will help us to understand where systemic barriers exist, and how to design equitable and inclusive programs that support the full and fair participation of all members of the health research community.

For more information about the self-identification questions CIHR is asking, the Privacy Notice Statement or how to complete the questionnaire, please visit the links below:

• Frequently Asked Questions about the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Self-identification Questionnaire
• How to complete the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Self-identification Questionnaire
• Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Privacy Notice Statement: Self-Identification Questionnaire

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The use of online generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT) present risks to both applicants and reviewers. As set out in the Guidance on the Use of Artificial Intelligence, the use of AI in peer review constitutes of a breach of confidentiality when reviewers fail to safeguard applicant materials. Refer to CIHR Policy Statement for more details.

Secured Handling of Documents

All materials used in the peer review process must be stored in a secure manner to prevent unauthorized access. They must be transmitted using secure carriers and technologies. When they are no longer required, all materials related to peer review must be deleted or destroyed using a secure method for destruction. Any loss or theft of materials related to merit peer review must be reported to your committee coordinator immediately. Please see the Guide on Handling Documents  Used in Peer Review for further details.

Policies and Considerations Impacting Peer Review

The policies guiding the peer review process can be found below.

International and Global Health Research Collaboration

Applications focused on global health, or which include international collaborations can be eligible if outlined on a program. Applications focused on the field of global health that demonstrate that the proposed research project has the potential to improve health in Canada and/or the global community are accepted and encouraged as more than ever before, the health of Canadians is deeply intertwined with the health of people around the world. Global health research is defined as any research with a focus on the health of people living in low- and middle-income countries, as well as research that aims to understand the systematic factors that shape health and are inherently global (e.g., globalization, equity, neglected diseases, and transnational risks). Global health is relevant to all pillars. Please consult International collaboration website and Global Health 3.0: CIHR's Framework for Action on Global Health Research for more information.

Knowledge Translation

Knowledge translation (KT) is integral to CIHR's mandate and falls into two main categories: end of grant KT and integrated KT. With both categories of knowledge translation, CIHR expects researchers and trainees to disseminate their findings and facilitate their translation into improved health, more effective products or services, and/or a strengthened healthcare system.

For end of grant KT, many means of dissemination exist and the onus is on the researchers to select the most appropriate vehicle for the intended knowledge-user audience to ensure maximum impact. When the primary knowledge users are researchers, dissemination of results through the publication of high-quality articles in accessible journals is appropriate, although other strategies that increase awareness of the results and facilitate their application may also be appropriate. When knowledge-user audiences outside the research community should be informed of specific research findings, dissemination plans with more ambitious goals and comprehensive strategies are expected. With integrated KT, stakeholders or potential knowledge users are engaged in the entire research process and the research is directed at producing solutions to issues or problems the stakeholders/knowledge users have identified.

Open Access Policy on Publications

CIHR believes that greater access to research publications and data will promote the ability of researchers and knowledge users in Canada and abroad to use and build on the knowledge needed to address significant health challenges. Open access will promote accessibility to CIHR-funded research and will serve to increase the international visibility of Canadian research. CIHR grant recipients are reminded to adhere to the responsibilities outlined in the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications. Under this policy, grant recipients must ensure that research papers and bio-molecular data generated from CIHR funding are freely accessible online.

Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis (SGBA) and Health Research

CIHR expects that all applicants will integrate sex and gender into their research designs when appropriate. Sex- and gender-based analysis (SGBA) is an approach that systematically examines sex-based (biological) and gender-based (socio-cultural) differences between men, women boys, girls, and gender-diverse people. The purpose of SGBA is to promote rigorous science that is sensitive to sex and gender and therefore has the potential to expand our understanding of health determinants for all people.

Reviewers are asked to explicitly assess whether the integration of sex (as a biological variable) and/or gender (as a socio-cultural factor) is a strength, a weakness or not applicable to the proposal. Reviewers are also asked to comment on their assessment and to provide recommendations to the applicants on how they might improve the strength of their applications with respect to the integration of sex and/or gender.

The SGBA section of the CIHR website provides helpful resources for applicants and peer reviewers alike, including CIHR's definitions for sex, gender, and SGBA, as well as information on applying SGBA to the development and assessment of research proposals.

Gender-neutral and gender-inclusive language in reviews

Reviewers are encouraged to adopt gender-neutral and gender-inclusive language in their reviews. In reviews, both written and spoken, gender-neutral and gender-inclusive language is more accurate and more respectful when discussing the science and the applicant.

When discussing the science remember that gender is non-binary. When research is meant to include all people, avoid binary statements like "men and women." Instead, consider phrases like "men, women, and gender-diverse people" or "people of all genders." In addition, be mindful of word choice. Below are a few examples of words that could be replaced with more gender-neutral and gender-inclusive terms:

• "Female/male anatomy" with specific anatomical language (e.g., ovaries, uterus, testes)
• "Mankind" with "humankind" or "people"
• "Man-made" with "machine-made", "synthetic" or "artificial"

When referring to the applicant, use gender neutral pronouns or phrases. For example, use "they" or "the applicant," rather than "he" or "she". Remain mindful of word choice, as some words could be replaced with more gender-neutral and gender-inclusive terms:

• "Chairman" with "Chair" or "Chairperson"
• "Maternity/paternity leave" with "parental leave"

Official Languages

In order to ensure that positive measures are undertaken within CIHR's mandate to contribute to the vitality of English and French minority communities in Canada, CIHR:

• Encourages the appropriate inclusion of official language considerations of English and French speaking Canadians, including those living in linguistic minority communities, in health research design, conduct, and application to improve health outcomes; and
• Facilitates equitable access to its programs and services for health research stakeholders in official language minority communities.

San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment

CIHR is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which "recognizes the need to improve the ways in which the outputs of scholarly research are evaluated". DORA recognizes that scholarly outputs include a broad range of contributions and impacts and are not limited to published journal articles.

Reviewers are to assess productivity and progress broadly by taking into consideration:

• a range of contributions (e.g., research publications, reports, books, guidelines, datasets, code, tools, training and mentorship, volunteerism, community engagement, standards, software and commercialized products) and impacts (e.g., influence on policy and practice, health outcomes, societal outcomes, and distinctions-based, meaningful and culturally safe health research), and
• the context of the applicant (e.g., leave history, career stage, area(s) of research, experiential knowledge, diverse career paths, family responsibilities, pandemic impact) and how it may have affected their progress.

Metrics such as number of publications and citations, and size/number of research grants should not be used in isolation to assess productivity. Reviewers should not use journal-based metrics (e.g., Journal Impact Factors) as surrogate measures of quality and impact of individual research publications. As stated in DORA, the "scientific content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published".

Summary of the Peer Review Process

The peer review process for this funding opportunity is described in detail in this document. It is essential to read the document and be familiar with it. It is also important to complete or update your Reviewer Profile on ResearchNet and read the CIHR Strategic Master's Award funding opportunity.

This program uses a structured review process, using the online ResearchNet platform. The review process is completed in one stage: an individual written review and rating of an assigned set of applications (i.e. there is no committee meeting). All eligible applications will be assigned to two (2) reviewers. Reviewers are asked to follow the step-by-step instructions below to successfully complete all peer review tasks:

Step 1: Manage Conflicts/Ability to Review
Step 2: Conduct Reviews
Step 3: Submit written reviews and ratings on ResearchNet
Step 4: Be prepared for a re-review

Step-by-Step Instructions

Step 1: Manage Conflicts/Ability to Review

To identify conflicts of interests on the assigned set of applications, reviewers are to follow these steps:

• Log into ResearchNet.
• On the home page, A "Reviews" tab will be available on the left side of your screen. Open the tab so see all the pee review activities to which you have been assigned.
  • Select the Peer Review – Member activity for the CIHR Strategic Master's Award committee.
• Complete the task "Review Confidentiality Policy and Conflict of Interest Guidelines" (once completed, it will "open" the other tasks).
  • Complete the subtask Self-identification questionnaire for the first time OR review the responses previously provided.
• Open the "Manage Conflicts/Ability to Review" task.
  • For each assigned application, use the information provided to indicate if you are able to review or if there is a conflict. If there is a conflict, CIHR will reassign the application to another reviewer.

Notes:

1. Reviewers are asked to assess applications from a generalist's perspective regardless of disciplinary background. While CIHR staff make reasonable efforts to align applicants' selected research areas with each reviewer's declared expertise for this funding opportunity, some applications may still fall outside the reviewer's field. In these cases, conflicts of interest should not be declared solely due to unfamiliarity with the subject matter.
2. As other reviewers within your committee will also declare conflicts, it is likely that you will receive additional application assignments. The calibration of workloads will be maintained to ensure a fair peer review workload.

Step 2: Conduct Reviews

Once conflicts have been identified, the full content of remaining assigned applications will be available under the task "Conduct Reviews". Reviewers should then follow the steps below.

2.1 Review the selection criteria

Reviewers should first become familiar with the selection criteria found at the end of this document in Appendix A. This appendix provides an interpretation of each criterion and identifies which elements of the application to review for that criterion.

CIHR is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which recognizes that scholarly outputs include a broad range of contributions and are not limited to published journal articles. Reviewers should therefore consider:

• A range of contributions (e.g., research publications, reports, books, guidelines, datasets, code, tools, training and mentorship, volunteerism, community engagement, standards, software and commercialized products) and impacts (e.g., influence on policy and practice, influence on direction of thought, use of research results by stakeholders, health outcomes, societal outcomes, and distinctions-based, meaningful and culturally safe health research); and
• The context of the applicant (e.g., health problems, family responsibilities, disabilities, trauma and/or loss, pandemic impact, career stage, area(s) of research, experiential knowledge and diverse career paths) and how it may have impacted the applicant's performance (see range of contributions). Please see specific notes about research area and career stage:
  • Reviewers should consider the research area/discipline of the applicant when reviewing an application, for example, publication productivity can vary when comparing a biomedical researcher, a clinician or a social scientist.
  • Reviewers should consider the career stage of the applicants to better assess and calibrate their set of applications, for example, direct entry to fellowship from PhD vs. entry after several years outside academia. Reviewers are asked to think critically about whether the training position for which an individual is applying for funding will have the desired career benefits and impact compared to other applicants.

2.2 Read the assigned applications

The CIHR Strategic Master's Award Reviewer Worksheet, sent via email, provides an optional tool that helps support this process. This tool is strictly for reviewers' own personal use and will not be filed with CIHR.

Reviewers should read all their assigned applications in detail before rating any of them and take notes to capture their impressions. As indicated in Note 1 above, it is important to note that some applicants will likely be conducting research outside of the reviewer's research specialty. Reviewers should therefore review each application with a generalist's perspective and assess the overall quality of the application including the applicant's career goals, profile and expectations as well as the proposed research, using the appropriate selection criteria.

It is important that reviewers are aware of the importance of the integration of sex and gender in research proposals and assess their appropriateness where applicable in their assigned set of applications. To learn more about Sex and Gender considerations in Research, reviewers are encouraged to complete these training modules:

• Introduction to Sex and Gender Considerations in Basic Science
• Introduction to Sex and Gender Considerations in Clinical and Epidemiological Research
• Assessing Sex and Gender Integration in Peer Review

When evaluating applications that involve and engage with First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples, reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the following training module and literature:

• Background context on Indigenous Health Research
• Ethics of Health Research Involving First Nations, Inuit and Métis People
• First Nations : The OCAP® principles, widely known and accepted were developed by the First Nations Information Governance Centre
• Inuit: Inuit Nunangat Policy and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami's (ITK)'s National Inuit Strategy on Research (NISR) [ PDF (1.18 MB) - external link ]outlines data governance principles.
• Métis: principles guiding ethical research with Metis communities [ PDF (1.18 MB) - external link ]
• Visions for Distinctions-based Indigenous Health Legislation: Executive summary
• SSHRC Guidelines for the Merit Review of Indigenous Research

To ensure that all applications are treated equally, reviewers are asked to base their evaluation only on the content of the application and not to complete any additional research (e.g. publications via PubMed, etc.).

2.3 Learning for participants in peer review

CIHR offers a number of learning modules to help you gain in-depth knowledge about our programs, processes and tools. These modules are intended to ensure that all participants in the peer review process have the same base knowledge of the processes and policies in order to conduct effective and fair peer review.

Addressing bias

As reviewers read the applications, they should be aware of and take actions to mitigate against bias related to gender, ethnicity, disability, Indigenous identity and Indigenous ways of knowing, institution size, region, age, language (including official language and minority communities bias) and interdisciplinary approaches to research. For example, it is important to be aware that:

• Career interruptions for childbearing and family responsibilities can influence opportunity for knowledge production, publications and related variables;
• Different disciplines, environments and diverse career paths offer different opportunities for research contributions (e.g., publications, influence on policy and practice, patents, knowledge mobilization activities, etc.);
• The reputation of institutions should not affect the reviewer's view of applicants or their research training environment;
• It is important to take steps to mitigate bias in reviewers' thought process about differences in culture (e.g. Indigenous Peoples of Canada);
• Recognize Indigenous identity in a reconciliation, nation-to-nation framework; and,
• A point should be made of respecting Canada's linguistic duality by recognizing the value of research in French and the value of research on Francophone minority communities.

To learn more about bias in peer review, reviewers must complete the related learning module.

2.4 Rate their assigned applications

Reviewers are asked to score their assigned applications against each of the selection criteria described in Appendix A, using CIHR's rating scale (below). It is particularly important that the full scale be used.

Applications with an overall weighted score below 3.5 are not eligible for CIHR funding, including those from partnerships/priority announcement opportunities.

2.5 Provide a written assessment for each assigned application

Reviewers must provide a concisely written assessment (limited to 4000 characters) for each assigned application that supports their ratings, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the application for each selection criteria. The written reviews will provide constructive advice to applicants to assist them in improving the quality and efficiency of the proposed training.

Reviewers should focus their comments on the strengths and weaknesses for each selection criterion:

• Keep it simple;
• Use familiar descriptors, such as those from the CIHR rating scale, that align with your rating;
• Include justification, context and an explanation of your comments, if applicable, for each topic introduced;
• Respect DORA principles by considering a range of contributions and impacts and avoiding the use of journal-based metrics such as Journal Impact Factors as surrogate measures of quality. Do not use metrics such as number of publications and citations, and size and number of grants or awards in isolation to assess the applicant – instead, balance quantitative metrics with qualitative parts of the proposal;
• Be clear and concise;
• While brevity is acceptable (e.g. using bullets), express complete thoughts and ensure the length is sufficient enough to inform the reader;
• Use objective and non-inflammatory language – avoid any biased language or approach;
• Carefully avoid language that might be construed as sarcastic, flippant, arrogant or inappropriate in any way.
• When referring to the applicant use gender neutral pronouns or phrases. For example, use "they" or "the applicant," rather than "he" or "she".

The applicant will receive the review as it is submitted by the reviewer. For this reason, reviewers are to refrain from inserting scores in the written comments and should not identify themselves in order to ensure the confidentiality of the review process.

For additional guidance on conducting high quality reviews please refer to CIHR's Review Quality Expectations and Review Quality Checklist, as well as the Conducting Quality Reviews learning module.

2.6 Flag issues for CIHR's attention

Any concerns regarding the application, eligibility, ethics, human stem cells, etc. should be reported to CIHR staff immediately for follow-up and should not be noted in the written comments unless they impact the scientific quality of the application.

Similarly, if you believe there may be a misrepresentation of information in an application or a breach of Agency policy, please inform us immediately so we can determine whether the issue needs to be addressed through the responsible conduct of research (RCR) process. For a list of potential breaches, please refer to the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research.

Step 3: Submit written reviews and ratings on ResearchNet

For security reasons, ResearchNet times-out rather frequently, and CIHR is unable to retrieve any lost information. Therefore, reviewers should save their work often so that it is not lost. Alternatively, reviewers can write their comments offline using CIHR Strategic Master's Award Reviewer Worksheet, sent via email, and then copy and paste the scores and written reviews directly into the appropriate text box on ResearchNet when ready.

Also, as the reviewers perform their evaluation, the reviews can be saved as drafts by selecting "Save draft copy" on ResearchNet. This allows reviewers to make changes at a later time. However, in order to submit the written reviews and ratings to CIHR, reviewers must select "Submit Final Review". Afterwards, no modifications will be possible.

It is important for reviewers to respect the deadline provided by submitting their written reviews and scores via ResearchNet by the date specified via correspondence with CIHR staff responsible for this program. Delays in the peer review process will jeopardize CIHR's ability to release decisions to applicants by the published date. If, at any point in the process, a reviewer determines that they may not be able to submit their reviews on or before the deadline, they must contact CIHR staff as soon as possible.

Step 4: Be prepared for a re-review

Once all the overall weighted scores are submitted, CIHR performs a discrepancy review by calculating the final rating for each application. CIHR will then identify applications which are at risk of an unfair decision because of a widespread between the reviewers' overall score. In such cases, CIHR will ask both assigned reviewers to reconsider their initial assessment and resubmit scores. To do so, they will be asked to get in contact with each other to discuss the application. This second review usually reduces the gap between overall scores to an acceptable size. Reviewers do not have access to the other reviewer's scores/reviews. However, when necessary, CIHR staff responsible for the program will help facilitate the re-review process.

If the discrepancy persists, CIHR will obtain a third review (unless the persisting discrepancy is found to have no impact on the overall top-ranked applications).

For this purpose, it is recommended that reviewers keep their working notes on file until a few weeks after the competition results have been announced. After which, please delete and/or destroy any copies of the applications that you have printed, downloaded, or saved.

Ranking of applications

Upon completion of the peer review process, CIHR will generate a ranking list for the applications. Ties between overall scores are often found within these competition-ranking lists. CIHR has a process in place should the number of ties found in the fundable range exceed the overall budget allocated for the competition. The ties are broken using the committee percent rank for ties between applications in different committees, and the consolidated percent rank for ties between applications within a committee.

Feedback

An important component of the peer review process is the review of the committee's effectiveness and functioning, and feedback on policy issues that may have arisen during the process. This feedback provides an opportunity for staff to address any concerns from committee members and for staff to record comments on the peer review process as part of CIHR's ongoing efforts to maintain an effective and high-quality peer review system. Reviewer feedback should be communicated to the committee program officer by email.

Appendix A – Detailed Selection Criteria and Tips for Reviewers

To support the objectives of this funding opportunity, the following selection criteria will be used:

• Academic Achievement (25%)
• Research Ability or Potential (25%)
• Experiences and Achievements within and beyond academia (25%)
• Research Training Environment (25%)

Reviewers should take into account the career stage of the applicants to better assess and calibrate their set of applications.

Appendix A – Detailed Selection Criteria and Tips for Reviewers

Date modified:

2026-08-11