Tips for (and by) Patient Partner Peer Reviewers
CIHR Institute of Genetics

2026 Edition

Contents

• 1.0 Introduction
  • About peer review
  • About this document
  • How to use this document
• 2.0 Tips for Patient Partner Peer Review
• 2.1 Approaching the Applications Assigned to You
• 2.2 Tips for When You First Receive Applications
• 2.3 Tips for When You Review Applications
• 2.4 Tips for Assigning Scores
• 2.5 Tips for Developing Constructive Comments
• 2.6 Examples of Constructive Comments
• 3.0 Glossary of Terms
• 4.0 Resources to Help You
• 4.1 Familiarizing Yourself with Peer Review
• 4.2 Patient Partnership in Basic Science Projects
• 4.3 References

1.0 Introduction

About peer review

Peer review of grant applications is a process involving several people who review the applications so that they can discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each and agree on a recommendation about funding. These discussions allow different forms of expertise, including lived expertise, to come together so that the applicants receive a fulsome assessment of their proposed work. This process is how CIHR ensures that applications that receive funding meet the objectives of the funding opportunity.

About this document

This document was co-created with individuals living with brain-heart conditions and their caregivers and family members, with additional input from individuals with genetic conditions. We collectively refer to these individuals as patient partners. Patient partners bring important perspectives to the peer review process. Patient partners who co-created this document all have experience with peer review.

We thank the Brain-Heart Interconnectome's patient partners Sheila Gariepy, Alexandra Rego, Kimberly Strain, and one who prefers to remain unnamed for writing, reviewing, and providing comments on this guidance.

We thank the CIHR Institute of Genetics’ patient partners Lori Dagenais, Isabel Jordan, Jordan LeBlanc, and Neil Merovitch for reviewing and providing additional feedback on this guidance.

How to use this document

This document contains several sections to help you complete your reviews. You can use the table of contents to navigate to different sections that you have questions about.

As a patient partner, you are not expected to have scientific or academic expertise to take part in peer review. Your lived experience and perspective are essential to the process. For example, you may help assess how the proposed research proposal could impact and benefit patients. Patient partners are particularly qualified to assess the aspects of research proposals relating to involving and engaging patient partners. This is an area where your expertise offers valuable insights that complement the scientific perspectives of other reviewers. In addition, patient partner reviewers bring their lived and professional experience and expertise to their role, bringing a different perspective from that of academic and clinical reviewers.

2.0 Tips for Patient Partner Peer Review

This section offers some tips from patient partner peer reviewers about approaching grant applications for peer review, scoring applications, and developing constructive comments. It also provides example comments and resources to help patient partners as peer reviewers.

2.1 Approaching the Applications Assigned to You

These are some tips from patient partner peer reviewers about approaching and reviewing applications that are assigned to you. They are in no order of importance.

The first time you review grant applications may seem overwhelming, which is normal, even for academics. Finding your own process to peer review is something everyone does, and this can change over time or can depend on what the opportunity or review looks like. There’s no “right” or “wrong” way to review. Take the time to learn what works best for you and adjust as you gain experience.

You bring your lived experience to evaluate the applications as a patient partner peer reviewer. You are encouraged to read the whole application, but you may focus on reviewing the parts of the application that you feel comfortable commenting on. For example, you may feel most comfortable with sections related to patient partnership and knowledge mobilization. You may also have scientific and medical expertise that you can apply to the review. Reviewers with a diverse mix of expertise bring different perspectives to their reviews and provide feedback that may not otherwise be provided when peer review is limited to academics.

2.2 Tips for When You First Receive Applications

The following tips are listed in order with respect to the review process, with items near the top being things you should consider when you first receive applications to review.

1. Identify any potential conflicts of interest you have with applications assigned to you before reviewing any applications in detail. Look through all the applications and review the names of team members to identify any conflicts. If there is a conflict, immediately notify CIHR staff and do not proceed to review that application. If you are unsure about a conflict of interest, you can reach out to CIHR staff to discuss it in more detail. Examples of conflicts of interest for patient partners include:
   1. You are a patient of the principal investigator or a co-investigator.
   2. You have been or are currently engaged as a patient partner on another project with the principal investigator or a co-investigator.
   3. You are named as a patient partner on another application for funding in the same grant competition.
2. Review the funding opportunity to learn more about the program requirements and application criteria.
3. Review the evaluation criteria and scoring rubric to become familiar with the types of things you will be paying attention to.
4. Skim through the applications and assess which ones might take a longer or shorter amount of time to review.
5. Briefly review the team’s CVs to understand at a basic level what each member brings to the research, including the patient partner(s) named in the application.

2.3 Tips for When You Review Applications

1. Review the plain language (also known as “lay”) summaries, which give an overview of the applications. Starting with an application that you feel most comfortable with and that you expect will take a shorter time to review may help you develop a “rhythm” for your reviews.
2. Develop your own process for reviewing. You may want to do a “first-pass” read through of all the applications to become familiar with your assigned applications. During this first read, the plain language/lay summary can help you understand the application better. Then continue reading through the rest of the applications once you’ve found a process that works for you. Trying to understand what each project is about takes time and is an important first step in the review process.
3. Write your review comments and scores in a separate document. This will allow you to easily review and add to them before submitting online and provide a backup in case of any technical issues during the submission.
4. Do not spend too much time reviewing or feeling “stuck” on parts of the application that you are unfamiliar with, such as sections with technical or scientific terms. Feel free to use online glossaries if that’s helpful, but if you can’t understand a section, move on to other parts of the application.
5. Comparing applications, for example, one that is well-written and one that is less clear, can be very helpful to see what stronger or weaker submissions look like.
6. Give yourself enough time to do your reviews and find a quiet, distraction-free place to review if possible and helpful. Plan to have breaks during the process, for example, between each application. The time away from reviews may be helpful.
7. Consider reviewing as a process over time rather than as a one-day event. It may be helpful to read through applications more than once, highlight things in them, take notes, etc. Do what you need to do to understand the application as best you can. You may not understand everything. That is okay. Do your best and reach out to CIHR staff for help.
8. Focus on the areas where you feel most comfortable when you start to draft your comments. As you go through the review process, give yourself time to adjust your comments; things may become clearer as you gain familiarity and understanding of the applications over time.
9. What you see in one application may help you with ideas for comments in another application (for example, ideas around patient partnership).
10. Focus on the strengths you bring to the review and your areas of experience and knowledge. You may feel you have more experience and knowledge related to sections like the patient partnership plan, participant recruitment, and knowledge mobilization. There are other peer reviewers who will have academic and scientific expertise, and your expertise complements theirs. For example, if looking at the CVs is overwhelming, or you don’t understand the meaning behind the various positions an applicant has held, you could focus your attention on aspects that you do understand.
11. Look at the patient partnership plan, including how patient partnership and the roles of patient partner(s) are described throughout the application:
    • Does the application go into detail of how the patient partner(s) will be involved? For example, is there more than one patient partner on the team?
    • Does the patient partner(s) have relevant lived experience(s) to the topics being studied? If not, does the patient partner(s) have other patient partnership experiences that may help in the described role?
    • Are patient partners already engaged (i.e., in developing the application), or do they already have a relationship with the team?
    • Does the application describe engagement of patient partners at an early stage and throughout the proposed research?
    • Are there plans for regular meetings that include patient partners and the team?
    • Are there staff resources allocated to support patient partnership in the project?
    • Are there specific tasks for patients involved in the proposed work? For example, attend meetings, review materials? Does the description feel superficial or generic?
    • What thought has gone into the patient partner role on the team? Do the descriptions seem meaningful or tokenistic (doing something to appear that patient partners are involved, but lacking convincing evidence that they are meaningfully included)?
    • Do the plans to engage patient partners seem appropriate, or does it feel like a name has simply been added to the grant application?
    • Does there appear to be time to build rapport between patient partners and the research team?
    • Look for examples of planned patient partnership activities like learning from patient partners’ experiences to design their research question or impact the methods/approach, working with a patient advisory council, priority setting with patients, co-presenting with patient partners or other knowledge mobilization activities, and connecting with community members.
    • Does the application include other details of patient partnership like how the team has involved the patient partner(s) in developing the grant application, sharing the approximate number of hours patients will be involved and for which tasks, planned training relating to patient partnership or planned training for patient partner(s), and partnerships with communities that will be impacted by their research.
12. For the patient partnership budget, consider:
    • Does it correspond to the described plan for patient partnership? Are there specific line items for patient partnership activities?
    • Is there compensation for patient partners, and is it reflective of guidance on compensation for patient partners, like the one from the Institute of Genetics? If there is no planned compensation for patient partners, is a reason given (for example, patient partners don’t want to or are not able to receive compensation for a variety of reasons)?
    • Is there a budget for knowledge mobilization that includes compensation and expenses for patient partners (for example, co-presenting at a conference)?
    • Is there a budget to reimburse expenses incurred by patient partners for their work on the research project, like parking, transportation, or other costs to attend meetings or events?
13. Look at the team’s planned or completed training relevant to the proposed project (for example, cultural sensitivity, equity, diversity and inclusion, patient partnership, research methods). Does it seem appropriate?

2.4 Tips for Assigning Scores

1. Follow the scoring rubric below, paying attention to the descriptors and the associated definitions. Make note of the mark thresholds (the scores that separate the funding categories from one another) for applications considered Fundable (score of 3.5 and above) and Non-Fundable (scores below 3.5).

   Within the Fundable categories, based on the definitions, identify if the application is Outstanding (scores of 4.5–4.9), Excellent (scores of 4.0–4.4) or Good (scores of 3.5–3.9).

   Descriptor	Range	Definition	Outcome
   Outstanding	4.5–4.9	The application excels in most or all relevant aspects. Any shortcomings are minimal.	Fundable range
   Excellent	4.0–4.4	The application excels in many relevant aspects and reasonably addresses all others. Certain improvements are possible.
   Good	3.5–3.9	The application excels in some relevant aspects and reasonably addresses all others. Some improvements are necessary.
   Fair	3.0–3.4	The application broadly addresses relevant aspects. Major revisions are required.	Non-fundable range
   Poor	0.0–2.9	The application fails to provide convincing information and/or has serious inherent flaws or gaps.

2. Consider only the content of the application when scoring. It is not the reviewer’s role to research the applicants, their prior work or related research projects to inform their review decisions.
3. Try to be consistent in how you apply the scoring rubric, so that the scores you assign to each application correspond to how you would rank the applications against one another. To help you do this, you may wish to assign scores and draft your comments for all the applications in an offline document, before finalizing and submitting your final scores and comments for any of the applications.

2.5 Tips for Developing Constructive Comments

Sometimes people are unsure how to write comments as peer reviewers for grant applications. Below is some guidance for writing constructive comments that may be helpful to applicants; either in terms of simply providing feedback, or in case they revise the application to submit for future funding opportunities.

1. Start with comments that are positive about the application. Think about and comment on the strengths (what worked well) and the weaknesses (areas for improvement) of the application. Was anything unclear or missing? Be honest and to the point about what you would have liked to see or areas for improvement. Try not to overthink the comments.
2. Write from the perspective of someone who wants to help the team succeed. This will help guide your comments to be constructive. Think about how you would feel if you were to receive your comments or how it would feel to deliver the comments face-to-face to someone.
3. Constructive comments should be consistent with the score you have assigned to an application. If you assigned a low score, your comment may indicate what you expected to see but was missing from the application or describe a problem you identified that should be addressed in a future application. For a high scoring application, comment on what was good about it, and if there are ways the application could be made stronger.
4. Avoid generalizations and overly simplified statements. A comment such as “this is unclear” leaves a lot to be questioned. A constructive comment is one that indicates why a particular aspect is unclear and what additional content would improve it.
5. Acknowledge what you feel are gaps in information that would have assisted in assessing the application.
6. Use your personal experience to inform your comments, but don’t share your personal health details in comments. Recognize that your lived experience may not be representative of all patients. Raise issues or concerns about how the project might impact patients that you think researchers should address.
7. Review your comments and reflect on whether any require revision before finalizing and submitting them.

2.6 Examples of Constructive Comments

Sometimes people are unsure of how to write comments as part of their work as peer reviewers. With permission, we have collected some real comments from patient partner peer reviewers that have been provided to research teams in their peer review feedback. We hope these are helpful to you in developing your own comments in your role as a peer reviewer.

1. From the information submitted, the patient partner appears to be a highly skilled and experienced patient partner who has advised on a project that is being leveraged for this one under review. He was said to be responsible for assisting with trial oversight and knowledge translation activities.”
2. “The research proposal is clear, detailed, internally consistent and appears appropriate in design, methodology and budget. I cannot assess if it is original and/or novel. The approach addresses IDEAS (inclusion, diversity, equity, accessibility and social justice) principles in its focus on females undergoing menopause, which is a group typically underrepresented in basic science.”
3.  “Great use of expertise and lived experience involvement in the study relevant to brain-heart health. Noted that Indigenous expertise will be added to later, however I would try to utilize their voice in the earlier stages rather than when coming upon the scenario. I liked the fact that you have ongoing communication with the team to ensure everyone's voices on the team is heard and issues can be addressed in a timely manner.”
4. “The brain heart connection wasn't as clearly described and the connection to the hypothesis didn't seem as clear to me. I see you engaged a patient partner, but I don't see a budget for it, or for the study participants.”
5. “There was very little shared on embedding IDEAS (Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Accessibility and Social Justice) considerations into the project. More time could have been spent discussing in the application how research participants with anxiety and depression will be accommodated throughout.”
6. “The application section “Outputs & Impact” was a bit vague. However, it is positive to read that they may open novel opportunities for future approaches. In addition, the study will potentially guide practitioners while providing a base of data to use for advocating individualized approaches.”
7. “Their self-reported Indigenous Research Level of Engagement Tool (IRLET) score was 13/20 (65%). For a project that is said to involve First Nations, Inuit and/or Metis people it would have been good to see a higher score. However, the information provided in the application under this question showed considerable planning in this area and engagement and so the IRLET did not have a major impact on the overall score but was taken into consideration.”
8. “The team brings expertise in several relevant areas for the proposed study. They may wish to explore the addition of a second patient partner to contrast/complement the experiences of the current patient partner. Best practices in patient engagement usually suggest at least 2 patient partners as a minimum as it offers patients support in their role and does help with issues of power.”
9. “The applicant has clearly articulated there's often comorbidity between these issues and proposes to investigate what processes - specifically genes or other pathways - might explain this connection. For this reason, this makes it a strong fit for BHI, and it will provide a strong basis for identifying people at risk for these specific heart-brain conditions as well as the potential for creation of a therapeutic.”
10. “For co-production, a strength is the inclusion of two patient partners and what looks like an adequate compensation budget; the applicant has spent some time already learning from the lived experiences of one patient partner (the Co-PI) and has involved the patient partners in some aspects of document review and discussion.”
11. “Overall, there are many strengths in this project, from the expertise of the team to the novel approach proposed. What remains unclear is how much the team will look at the interconnection between brain and heart in their work around strokes since the bulk of the work described seems to focus on strokes only. It is recognized the team is using knowledge around heart repair and applying/addressing some limitations of that work to the current project, but further clarification in how the project aligns to both brain and heart would contribute to its success.”
12. “The Co-PI and Co-Applicant have the experience to oversee, direct and conduct this research project, and have prior experience working with Indigenous groups. There is limited diversity among members of the research team; all are affiliated with the same institution and all are male, from a diversity of cardiac clinical and research specialties. There is no representation of researchers from other institutions, brain/neurology specialties, or Indigenous people.”
13. “The application emphasizes that it supports the IDEAS (inclusion, diversity, equity, accessibility, and social justice) themes… and demonstrates the intention to recruit a diverse study group and establish partnerships with Indigenous and immigrant communities. There is limited evidence that these objectives can be achieved in the short timeframe of the project milestones, as there is no indication that partnerships have yet been established. The application would benefit from both letters of support from these organizations, and a budget to support those partnerships.”
14. “The application describes meaningful patient partner engagement of the co-PI in developing the study design, and a concrete plan for ongoing engagement and influence of the co-PI over the direction of the project. The study design also includes workshops with menopausal women to present the study objectives and findings, and consider their input, as part of the knowledge translation activities. The applicants may wish to consider ongoing engagement the co-PI and other women with relevant lived experience in knowledge translation activities, such as presentations at workshops and conferences.”

3.0 Glossary of Terms

Below are some common terms that you may encounter during the peer review process.

1. Co-Investigator/Co-Applicant: Additional members of the research team.
2. Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI): A co-lead researcher.
3. Coproduction: A collaborative approach to health care research, where knowledge users are engaged as equal partners throughout the project alongside researchers.
4. Collaborator: Individual with specific expertise that plays an active role in research and related activities.
5. Conflict of interest: Situations where a reviewer or researcher’s personal interests could influence their objectivity in the review process.
6. Confidentiality: Ensuring that all information, materials, and discussions related to the review process remain private and are not shared outside the designated organization.
7. CV (Curriculum Vitae): A document outlining an individual’s academic background, work experience, skills, and other qualifications relevant to the grant application.
8. Early Career Researcher: Investigators within five years of their research career (past the postdoctoral level).
9. Highly Qualified Personnel: An expert, such as a research technician, statistician, etc.
10. In-kind contributions: Non-monetary resources or services provided to support the project, such as volunteer time, equipment, or expertise.
11. Knowledge mobilization: The process of translating research findings into practical applications to be used by decision-makers, practitioners, and the public. May also be referred to as “knowledge translation.”
12. Knowledge user: Individuals or organizations who apply research findings to improve practices, policies, or outcomes in their field. This can include, but is not limited to Indigenous leaders and communities, patients, health professionals, community-based organizations, health charities, health system leaders, policymakers, and private sector organizations.
13. Letters of support: Letters from collaborators or organizations that describe either an in-kind contribution or the involvement of a collaborator in the project. These are optional additions to applications.
14. Participant: A person who is enrolled as a subject in a research study.
15. Patient: Individuals with lived experiences with a health issue, informal caregivers (including family and friends), and/or individuals that are at risk of or otherwise affected by relevant health conditions.
16. Patient-oriented research: Inclusive approach to research that actively engages patients as partners, focuses on patient-identified priorities and improves patient outcomes.
17. Patient engagement: Meaningful and active collaboration with patients in governance, priority setting, research activities and knowledge mobilization.
18. Patient partnership: When academic researchers work together with people with lived experience of a health condition to do research. This term is an evolution of “patient engagement” and is meant to emphasize the importance of working in partnership, similar to coproduction.
19. Peer review: A process where experts in a field evaluate the quality, relevance, and feasibility of research proposals before funding decisions are made.
20. Principal Investigator (PI)/Nominated Principal Applicant (NPA): The lead person on a research project.
21. Trainee: A student at the undergraduate, graduate, or postdoctoral level who is part of the research team.

Additional glossaries of scientific terms.

1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Jargon Buster provides plain language definitions of frequently used terms in health research
2. CIHR Glossary of Funding Related Terms
3. National Cancer Institute has several dictionaries that outline scientific and research terms

4.0 Resources to Help You

Below are additional, optional resources that you may find useful.

4.1 Familiarizing Yourself with Peer Review

1. Grant Review 101: The Basics of Peer Reviewing Grant Applications

   This video is a recorded presentation by Dawn Richards that gives a primer on how the peer review process generally works and information for patient partners.

   Time to review: 60 minutes (35 minutes outlining the peer review process; 25 minutes of discussion with patient partners who have done peer review).

2. People with Lived Experience in Peer Review Course

   This is a self-paced learning module that provides people with lived experience the necessary information to understand and feel confident participating in the peer review process. Available in French and English. Offers a certificate of completion.

   Time to review: 30 minutes.

3. Engaging Patient Partners as Peer Reviewers of Grant Applications: Tips for Everyone Involved

   This is an article to help you learn more about peer review as a patient partner and some of the items you might wish to consider — from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis’ Patient Engagement Research Ambassadors.

   Time to review: 15 minutes.

4. Learning for Peer Reviewers

   The Canadian Institutes of Health Research have learning modules, resources, and templates that you might find helpful to explore.

4.2 Patient Partnership in Basic Science Projects

1. Parkinson UK
2. LabPartners research team
3. CIHR Institute of Genetics – How a cookbook influenced Dr. François Gros-Louis’s research

4.3 References

1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Knowledge translation at CIHR. Government of Canada.
2. Brain-Heart Interconnectome. Research Knowledge Mobilization Exploration Program. University of Ottawa.
3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Strategy for patient-oriented research – Patient engagement framework. Government of Canada.
4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Institute of Genetics – Patient Partnership. Government of Canada.

Date modified:

2026-06-19