Print Friendly >		Evaluation Criteria | Evaluation Committees The Scholar or Senior Scholar applications are reviewed by investigators who are experts in the field of the research proposed in the application. Peer review process Confidentiality Conflict of Interest Application Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria and Assessment Descriptors Weightings Establishment Grant Evaluation Criteria Peer Review Process The applications are reviewed by peers, or equals of the applicants in research knowledge and expertise. Awards are based on merit as determined by the panel of experts. All MSFHR reviewers are required to observe the MSFHR MSFHR Policy on Conflict of Interest (PDF) and Guidelines on Conflict of Interest (PDF). Chairs and Scientific Officers of the evaluation committees organized around the four health research themes meet with the Program Manager to determine if the applicants have submitted to the appropriate research theme. If required, an application may be transferred from one research theme to another. MSFHR will notify the applicant of the transfer. Evaluation Committees consist of members who are located both in and outside BC. Each application is assigned a primary and secondary reviewer who is not in conflict with the applicant. Applications are also reviewed by up to three external readers outside British Columbia. The readers' reports are provided to the primary and secondary reviewers for their reference, as well as to the applicants. Evaluation Committee members rate the applications according to established criteria and prepare their evaluation reports prior to the review meeting. Review meetings are held within four months of the competition deadline date. Evaluation Committee members discuss the applications and vote on a consensus score. The applications are ranked in order of the Evaluation Committee's numeric score. To maintain the integrity of the peer review process, the identity of reviewers assigned to review specific applications is kept anonymous. The Peer Review Oversight Committee (PROC) discusses the ranked list from each Evaluation Committee and any other issues regarding the peer review process and presents their findings to the Research Advisory Council. Recommendations for funding are made by the Research Advisory Council to the MSFHR Board for approval. Confidentiality All information contained in applications, external reader reports, Evaluation Committee comments and discussions are kept strictly confidential and subject to the BC Personal Information Act (PIPA). Committee members do not discuss with applicants or external readers any information relating to the review and funding. Back to Top Conflict of Interest Evaluation Committee members and external readers are in conflict with the applicant if they: are from the same immediate department, research group, centre, institute, company or other type of institutional subdivision as any applicant named in a project have collaborated, published or been a co-applicant within the last five (5) years, with any applicant name in a project have been a student or supervisor of the applicant within the last ten (10) years are or have been a close personal friend or relative of the applicant have had long standing or serious scientific or personal differences with the applicant for some other reason believe they cannot in good faith provide an objective review of the application Application Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Committee members and external readers use identical evaluation criteria. The assessment takes into account the stage of, and any interruptions in the applicant's career. The applicant is evaluated on track record, research proposal/program of research, environment and support. Evaluation Committees use the Canadian Institutes of Health Research assessment scale (0 to 4.9) and assessment descriptors and apply the MSFHR Evaluation Criteria to the assessment scale. Weightings given to the criteria vary with the stage of the applicant's criteria. Establishment Grant budget and justification is reviewed by evaluation committee members only. Good grantsmanship is important. Applications should be free of jargon, grammatical and typographical errors. The content should be cohesive, flow logically and easy for reviewers to follow. Applicants receive the following feedback after the competition: primary and secondary reviewer reports committee discussion summarized by the Scientific Officer External Reader reports Back to Top Evaluation Criteria and Assessment Descriptors Assessment Descriptor - Outstanding Numeric Score - 4.50 – 4.90 Scholar Evidence of receipt of significant number of highly competitive prestigious grants and awards Significant record of research activity with evidence of independence, originality and leadership Publication/presentation record is outstanding in their stage of career with papers as primary author in leading journals in their field Letters of reference are uniformly strong Evidence of recruiting and training graduate students, post doctoral fellows, research assistants and others Research proposal embodies leading edge concepts, methodologies, tools or technologies and is innovative and original Rationale for research proposal is clearly described, problem areas acknowledged and alternative tactics defined Timeline is feasible and the science described will advance knowledge, concepts, technologies, methods, services or preventive interventions in this area Clear commitment by host institution for future on-going salary support, including start-up funds, space and access to other infrastructure Senior Scholar National leader in his/her field and beginning to achieve international recognition Brilliant level of research activity with an outstanding record of grants Outstanding publication record in high quality journals and a significant number of invited presentations Letters of support are uniformly strong and provide considerably detailed assessments of the applicant's research strengths and capabilities Demonstration of outstanding training and mentoring skills Conceptual framework, design, methods and analyses of the program of research is succinctly described Evidence of useful collaborative arrangements within host institution and outside The schedule for completing the program is very realistic Demonstrates plans for effective dissemination of the results Dean or Department Head has provided very clear commitment of additional five years salary support, comparable to MSFHR Senior Scholar, after completion of Senior Scholar award Assessment Descriptor - Excellent Numeric Score - 4.00 – 4.40 Scholar Evidence of receipt of several prestigious grants and awards Appears to be a promising researcher Publication/presentation record is excellent in their stage of career Letters of reference are strong Likely to be an excellent mentor Research proposal has the potential to substantially contribute to knowledge in the field Applicant is being offered some commitment by host institution for future on-going salary support Senior Scholar Beginning to achieve national recognition Record of grant funding is admirable Publication record is excellent with papers in good quality journals and there is evidence of several invited presentations Letters of support are unanimously positive and provide some specific details about the applicant's research background Demonstration of strong training and mentoring skills Program of research has the potential to contribute substantially to the field Dissemination plans have been discussed Dean or Department Head has provided commitment of additional five years salary support, comparable to MSFHR Senior Scholar, after completion of Senior Scholar award Assessment Descriptor - Very Good Numeric Score - 3.50 – 3.90 Scholar Evidence of receipt of grants and awards but fewer and less competitive Has very good record of research experience but has yet to demonstrate independence from supervisor Publication and presentation record appear to be strong Letters of reference provide credible support but the information tends to be more general than specific Research project is well presented and there is enough methodological details to evoke confidence that the goals will, in all likelihood, be achieved Offered commitment for future on-going salary support contingent upon receiving a MSFHR award but efforts are being made to find an on-going position Evidence of good institutional commitment is present and the training and research environment are good Senior Scholar Good research experience but is not yet a national leader Research record is not considered highly innovative or significant Good record of funding to date Publication record is strong Evidence of invited presentations is few Demonstration of good training and mentoring experience Program of research is well presented with enough methodological details to evoke confidence that the goals will be achievable Limited information provided regarding dissemination plans The commitment of additional five years salary support, comparable to MSFHR Senior Scholar, after completion of Senior Scholar award is not explicitly stated Assessment Descriptor - Adequate Numeric Score - 3.00 – 3.40 Scholar Research experience is tied to supervisor's research making assessment of independence difficult Publication/presentation record is low for stage of career Evidence of few to nil prizes, awards and grants Letters of reference provide limited support May be able to provide fair to good mentorship Scope of the research project appears to match the level of applicant's training and research activities Description of project and methodology provides limited information or raises concerns about feasibility or significance Being offered a position contingent upon receiving a MSFHR award Institutional support in terms of start-up funds, lab and office space and access to other infrastructure is fair or not clearly defined Senior Scholar Academic record and research skills are adequate Evidence of receipt of few or no prizes and grant funding record is fair Publication record is fair Letters of reference provide limited support Limited mentorship activities Dean or Department Head has not provided clear commitment of additional five years salary support comparable to a MSFHR Senior Scholar award after completion of Senior Scholar award Assessment Descriptor - Needs Revision/Not Acceptable Numeric Score - 0.00 – 2.90 Scholar Academic and research training meets the minimum requirement at the scholar level No awards, prizes or grants have been listed Publication record is minimal Letters of reference are either brief or do not adequately describe the applicant's academic strengths or research abilities Concern about training and mentorship potential Research project may be valid but not very innovative, description is vague and methodology has weaknesses Host institution's support is not strong in terms of a full-time on-going appointment, start-up funds, lab and office space and access to other infrastructure Senior Scholar Academic and research experience meets the minimum requirement at the Senior Scholar level Publication record is fair but limited No awards/prizes have been listed Letters of support do not adequately describe the academic strengths and research skills Very limited mentorship experience Program of research may be valid but not very innovative, schedule of activities is not realistic Information on dissemination plans not provided Institutional support is not strong Dean or Department Head has not provided clear commitment of additional five years salary support comparable to a MSFHR Senior Scholar award after completion of Senior Scholar award Back to Top Weightings Category Review Criteria Weightings for All Themes Scholar Track Record .40 Research Proposal .60 Senior Scholar Track Record .60 Research Proposal .40 Establishment Grant Evaluation Criteria Have the requested items been clearly justified? Do they reflect the goals of the research proposal/program of research? Do the requested items complement current funding from host institution and operating grants? Are the roles/responsibilities of the personnel being recruited clear in their involvement to the research proposal/program of research? Back to Top Last updated August 30, 2007
		© 2008 Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. All rights reserved. Disclaimer | Site Map