The Peer Review Meeting: A Guide for (and by) Patient Partners
CIHR Institute of Genetics

2026 Edition

Content

1.0 Introduction

About peer review meetings

Peer review of grant applications often involves a meeting of people who review those applications so that they can discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each application and agree on a recommendation about funding. These discussions allow all the 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.

Usually, several reviewers are assigned to read and evaluate each application. These reviewers bring different perspectives, including scientific, clinical, and lived expertise about the applications being discussed. Together, all the reviewers for each application are referred to as a “panel” or “committee,” but their work together is limited to the specific funding opportunity they review for.

In addition to the reviewers, the peer review meeting will include a Chair, who leads the meeting but does not act as a reviewer. One or more Scientific Officers will take notes during the meeting so that the main points of the discussions are captured. Several CIHR staff will also be present. Some of these staff directly support the meeting by corresponding with reviewers, helping them access the meeting, answering questions, etc. Some CIHR staff may also be present to observe the meeting. Observing the meeting can help CIHR staff improve future funding opportunities.

About this document

This document was co-created with individuals living with genetic conditions who all have experience with peer review. Additional feedback was provided by individuals living with brain-heart conditions and their caregivers and family members. We refer to these individuals as patient partners. Patient partners bring important perspectives to the peer review process.

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

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

How to use this document

If the peer review process you are involved in involves a meeting of all the reviewers, there are some things to know to help you prepare for this process. This document assumes you will participate in a meeting on a virtual platform, like Teams or Zoom.

This document provides details about what to expect when you participate in a peer review process that includes a meeting of all the reviewers. We provide information about what will happen before the review meeting, how to prepare for the review meeting, how to contribute during the meeting, and what is expected of you after the meeting. The table of contents will help you navigate to different sections. Terms that appear in bold also have a definition in the glossary at the end of the document.

If you have questions about how to review grant applications, you can refer to the document titled “Tips for (and by) Patient Partner Peer Reviewers.”

How to get help

If you have questions about any aspects of peer review, you can contact the staff person who corresponds with you about your review assignments.

2.0 Before receiving your assigned applications

  • You may be invited to attend a separate meeting with all the reviewers so that you can meet each other. Staff will also remind everyone about the purpose of the grant opportunity and general principles about peer review.
  • Most academic reviewers introduce themselves by talking about where they work and their area of research.
  • As a patient partner, you can decide how to introduce yourself, and you do not need to share personal medical details.
  • It may feel intimidating to hear about others’ academic credentials but remember that regardless of what credentials you do or don’t have, you have been invited to review because your lived expertise is important.
  • Here are some examples of what you might like to include in your introduction:
    • “I know a lot about navigating the medical system because I have lived with inflammatory arthritis for 30 years.”
    • “I have been a patient partner on various research projects.”
    • “I care for a child with a rare disease.”

2.1 Before the review meeting

Scheduling and Agenda

  • The meeting may happen over one or more days, depending on the number of applications to be reviewed.
    • The review process for each application usually takes about 25 minutes.
  • The meeting review date might be scheduled without any input from you. Before you agree to review grant applications, it is important to find out if there is a meeting date and whether there is any flexibility. You can ask CIHR staff for this information if it is not provided to you.
  • An agenda with the order in which the applications will be discussed during the meeting, as well as any breaks, is usually sent out quite close to the meeting date. This is because all the scores from all reviewers are needed to finalize which applications will be discussed and when.
  • The agenda can change on the day of the meeting due to various factors; for example, reviewers may not be available at certain times due to other commitments. You have the right to say when you are and are not available.
    • Planned breaks may get moved or even shortened to accommodate scheduling changes. You may need to speak up during the meeting or send a message to CIHR staff who are helping with the meeting to let them know when you need breaks to make sure your needs are met.

Conflicts of Interest

  • Some reviewers, including you, might have conflicts of interest with some of the applications being discussed. If those conflicts were identified prior to the meeting, then reviewers will be removed from the room when those applications are discussed.
  • Staff will explain the process for being removed from the room and for re-entry. Usually, they will place you in the waiting room and allow you to rejoin the meeting when the discussion about the application is finished.
  • If you discover during the meeting that you have a conflict of interest not previously identified, you should tell staff right away.
    • Examples of conflicts of interest for patient partners include:
      • You are a patient of the principal investigator or a co-investigator.
      • You have been or are currently engaged as a patient partner on another project with the principal investigator or a co-investigator.
      • You are named as a patient partner on another application for funding in the same grant competition.

2.2 Preparing to contribute at the review meeting

  • Before the meeting starts, make sure that you can access ResearchNet, which you will use during the meeting. Make sure you have the information about when and how to connect to the meeting and check that your microphone and camera are working.
  • You might want to review what you submitted for each application prior to the review meeting so that it is fresh in your mind.
  • Once you submit your reviews in ResearchNet, you will get access to other reviews of the same applications. It is helpful to read those reviews so that you are familiar with the opinions of others. This can help you prepare for the meeting.
    • Sometimes, CIHR staff may notify you the day before the meeting if the scores on an application you reviewed are quite different from each other. Differences between reviewers’ scores are expected, but you may want to read the other reviewers’ comments so that you can understand why the scores are different.
    • Please contact CIHR staff if you do not know how to access the other reviews.
  • There will be other applications discussed at the meeting that you are not assigned to review.
    • During the meeting, you will have an opportunity to ask questions about these applications and to score each of them.
    • For this reason, you might want to spend some time reading at least the plain language summary for each of these other applications so that you know a bit about each application. You can access these applications via ResearchNet.

2.3 During the review meeting

How to contribute during the meeting

  • It is important for you to be present to discuss the applications that you were assigned to review.
  • For other applications that you were not assigned to review, feel free to turn off your camera, move around, get something to drink, or do whatever you need to stay comfortable during the meeting.
    • It is good for you to listen to the discussion of other applications, and contribute to the discussion if you want to, but it is not essential. However, you will be asked to provide a score for each application based on the discussion of the panel, so you may want to listen so that you have a general understanding of the rationale that is provided for the final score.
    • You will be able to ask questions and discuss the other applications that you were not assigned to review, but if scheduling constraints make this difficult for you, then it is okay for you to leave the meeting for those other discussions. It is important to let CIHR staff know if you might not be available at specific times so that they can make sure the agenda allows you to be present for discussion of applications you reviewed.
  • You will be asked not to use the chat box to make any comments about the applications. If you have comments or questions about an application, you must do so verbally.

Overall meeting process

  • The Chair will lead the meeting, with support from CIHR staff.
  • The Chair works to ensure that the meeting stays on time and that reviewers focus on what should be discussed as part of the review process.
  • The Chair may also remind the whole group about the role of patient partner reviewers and make sure that you have opportunities to speak.

This table describes the process for how each application will be reviewed during the meeting. The sections of the guide below describe each step of the process in more detail.

Chair introduces application
  • Checks for conflicts of interest
  • Announces assigned reviewers and ask for initial scores
Initial scores
  • Assigned reviewers present their initial scores
Reviewer 1
  • Present summary of application and review (strengths, weaknesses and Sex- and Gender-based analysis)
Other assigned reviewers
  • Focus on points of agreement/disagreement while minimizing repetitions
  • Provide comments based on their individual perspectives
Committee discussion
  • Opportunity to discuss and ask questions
Consensus score
  • Assigned reviewers try to agree on a consensus score. If they cannot agree, the average will be the consensus
Scientific Officer notes
  • Reads notes, and adjusts based on feedback from committee
E-scoring
  • Committee members (not in conflict) vote +/- 0.5 of the consensus score
Budget discussion
  • Discuss any budget considerations or recommendations

Chair introduces an application

  • The Chair introduces an application for review by the name of the lead researcher who submitted the application.
  • Then the Chair asks CIHR staff to ensure that any reviewer with a conflict of interest is removed from the meeting before the application is discussed.

Initial scores

  • Before reviewers share their comments, the Chair asks all the reviewers assigned to an application to share their initial scores of the application. This is the score that you provided when you submitted your review before the meeting.
    • Reviewers for each application may represent different views/expertise, like academic reviewers and patient partner reviewers. Reviewers will be referred to as “Reviewer 1”, “Reviewer 2,” etc.
    • You will not be assigned as Reviewer 1 to any application, so you do not have to speak first.
  • By hearing all scores out loud, the Chair and the rest of the reviewers will get a first impression of the application quality and whether there are any major differences between how reviewers scored it.
  • Your score may differ from other reviewers because you bring a different perspective. This is okay, and in fact, it might indicate that you have noticed something different from the other reviewers that is important to discuss.
  • CIHR staff will record these scores to get an average score that will be used later, when it comes time for everyone to agree on what is called a consensus score.

Reviewer comments

  • After the initial scores have been shared, the Chair asks Reviewer 1 to provide a brief overview of the grant application and the strengths and weaknesses. Then the Chair asks subsequent reviewers, including you, to share any additional strengths and weaknesses that have not yet been shared.
  • If it is helpful for you to keep track of the discussion, you may want to take notes about the comments from other reviewers.
  • When it is your turn to speak, it is important to share your expertise about the application, even if you are unsure whether it is different from what other reviewers have said. You may disagree with the other reviewers and that is okay.
    • Some examples of ways you can frame your comments are:
      • “From a patient perspective, I think that…”
      • “My opinion is different from the other reviewers, because in my experience…”
  • You can refer to the written review that you submitted before the meeting to help remind you about the points you want to make.
  • If other reviewers make comments about patient partnership, you may want to specifically mention whether you agree with their assessment and add your comments on this topic.

Committee discussion

  • After all the reviewers have given their reviews of the application, the Chair invites any other reviewers who were not assigned to that application to ask questions and contribute to the discussion about the application.
  • For applications that you were not asked to review, now is the time when you can ask questions and share your perspective.

Consensus score

  • At this point, the Chair reminds everyone what the average score of the application was before the discussion occurred. Then the Chair asks the reviewers who were assigned to the application if they agree with the average score or would like to adjust it.
  • It is very common for the score to be adjusted after these discussions because reviewers will have learned about other perspectives they may not have considered in their own reviews. The reviewers will agree on a new “consensus score.”

Scientific Officer notes

  • The Chair asks the Scientific Officer to provide a summary of the discussion.
    • The Scientific Officer is usually an academic researcher, and their responsibility is to keep track of the discussion of the application. They make notes as the discussion is happening and then share back with the group what they heard about the strengths and weaknesses of the application.
  • The reviewers then have a chance to correct, add or delete any notes that the Scientific Officer made.

E-scoring

  • All reviewers, whether they were assigned to the application or not, will now privately provide a score via ResearchNet. The score must be within a range of 0.5 above or below the consensus score.
    • For example, if the consensus score is 4.0, you can give the application a score ranging between 3.5 and 4.5.

Budget discussion

  • The Chair asks for comments about the budget of the application. The budget is not usually discussed during the review of the application itself, but you might have some comments about it because it is an important element to consider when evaluating patient partnership.
  • When providing your review during the committee discussion, you might comment generally about what elements are included in, or missing from, the budget that impact your assessment of patient partnership.
  • During this specific discussion about the budget, you might want to provide more details, such as if the compensation rate for patient partners is adequate.

Then the Chair calls for the next application to be discussed and the above process is repeated for each application.

2.4 Special cases

Calibration

For the first few reviews, the committee may do a calibration exercise to give everyone a sense of the spread between the top application and those that are less competitive, but still above the cutoff score for discussion (see Streamlining below).

CIHR staff will create the agenda so that the committee starts by reviewing applications that:

  • are strong, moderate, and less competitive (one of each);
  • have good agreement among the assigned reviewers; and,
  • have no, or few, conflicts of interest.

The review process for each application will proceed as described above.

Streamlining

Some applications may not be discussed, even if you provided a score and comments. These applications might be streamlined based on feedback from all the reviewers who are assigned to review them.

  • If the average score for an application falls below what is considered “fundable” (at CIHR, this is a score below 3.5), it will not be discussed as there is no chance of it being funded.
  • The reviewers will be advised during the meeting which applications are being streamlined. If you or another reviewer feel strongly that an application should still be discussed, then it is possible to do that by telling staff.
  • The applicants will still receive reviewer comments so they will know why they did not receive funding and what to improve next time.

2.5 At the end of the meeting

  • After all the applications have been discussed, the Chair will ask everyone to provide feedback on the review process itself.
    • You can raise any concerns or uncertainties you had while completing your reviews or during the meeting. For example, some reviewers have raised concerns about lack of clarity in the objectives for a funding call. This feedback is important to improve future funding calls.
  • Any feedback you may have after the meeting about the process, your experience as a reviewer, or any other aspect is also important. Whether you prefer not to share during the meeting itself, or if it occurs to you later, feedback can also be shared via email or during a follow-up meeting with CIHR staff.
    • In some cases, there may be a specific CIHR staff person who supports patient partners. You can contact them to share feedback about any aspects of your experience.

2.6 After the meeting

  • Your scores and comments are treated the same as those of the other reviewers. Together, the scores and comments from the whole committee will help create a ranking of the applications to be considered for funding.
  • After the meeting, you will have one week to make changes to the reviews you submitted via ResearchNet. You may want to change some of your comments based on discussions that take place during the review meeting, but you are not required to make any changes.
  • After your final reviews are submitted, you are required to destroy any materials related to the applications you reviewed.
    • This includes deleting files from your computer and other electronic devices and recycling printed copies and notes.
  • You will be contacted by CIHR staff about any compensation, and reimbursement for expenses, that is offered. You may have to complete paperwork to receive funds.
  • You will not be directly informed about which applications are funded. To find out which applications receive funding, you can consult CIHR’s funding decisions database approximately one month after the review meeting.

3.0 Glossary of Terms

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

Academic: An individual with a job at a university and/or hospital, who is employed to do research, teach, and/or see patients.

Calibration: The committee reviews a few applications at the start of the meeting to give everyone a sense of the spread between the top application and those that are less competitive, but still beyond the cutoff score for discussion.

Chair: Usually an academic. They are responsible for ensuring that the review committee functions smoothly, effectively, and objectively. As Chair, they will also need to establish and maintain a positive, constructive, fair-minded environment during the review process.

Conflict of interest: Situations where a reviewer’s personal or professional interests, including relationships with the applicants, could influence their objectivity in the review process.

Consensus score: The score agreed upon by the reviewers assigned to an application. If they cannot agree on a score, the average of their scores will be used as the consensus score.

Scientific Officer (SO): Usually an academic. They take notes of the committee discussions. The SO notes should be clear and concise, give objective and constructive feedback, and provide the applicants with insight into the committee’s discussion of their application.

Streamlined application: If the average score for an application falls below what is considered “fundable” (at CIHR, this is usually a score below 3.5), then there is no chance of it being funded so it will not be discussed.

Date modified: