Funding Programs - Research Trainee Program

Evaluation Criteria | Evaluation Committees

Peer Review Process
Confidentiality
Evaluation Criteria

Peer Review Process
The applications are reviewed by panels of researchers who have knowledge and expertise in the areas of research of the applicant. Awards are based on merit as determined by the evaluation panels. All MSFHR reviewers are required to observe the MSFHR Policy on Conflict of Interest (PDF) and Guidelines on Conflict of Interest (PDF).

Trainee Evaluation Committees consist of members who are located in BC.
The Chairs of evaluation committees in 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.
Each application is assigned a primary and secondary reviewer who are not in conflict with the applicant and the supervisor.
The primary and secondary reviewers rate the applications according to established criteria and prepare their evaluation reports prior to the review meeting.
Review meetings are held within three 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 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 present 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, reviewer and evaluation committee comments and discussions are kept strictly confidential and are subject to the BC Personal Information Act (PIPA).
Committee members do not discuss with applicants any information relating to the review and funding.

Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Committee members use identical evaluation criteria.
The assessment takes into account the stage of, and any interruptions in, the applicant's training and career.
The applicant is evaluated on other research activity, training plan (JGS/SGS only), career development pathway (PDF only), research project, training environment, publication activity (JGS/SGS only), reference letters, academic record (JGS/SGS only).
Evaluation Committees use the CIHR assessment scale (0 to 4.9) and assessment descriptors and apply the MSFHR Evaluation Criteria (Hyperlink to the table below) to the assessment scale.
Weightings (Hyperlink to the Weightings below) given to criteria vary with the stage of the applicant's career.
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 feedback on the strengths and areas of improvement on their application and training after the competition.

Assessment Descriptors
Applicants will be evaluated based on their stage of career development.

Assessment Descriptor - Outstanding
Numeric Score Range: 4.5 - 4.9

Applicant has outstanding research experience and training, and has a significant number of presentations, distinctions, awards and credentials.
Outstanding training plan at every step of training development. Progressing at an exceptional pace.
Outstanding track record. The applicant is strategically positioned to become an independent investigator. (For Post Doctoral Fellows only)
Research project embodies leading edge concepts, and has a strong potential to contribute substantially to knowledge in this field. It contains a testable hypothesis/research question, appropriate methodology, outcomes and timeline, and is of the caliber expected of an outstanding applicant.
Supervisor has established first-class facilities, and is well supported with on-going peer-review funding. Fit between the supervisor's area of research and the student's research project is very strong.
Applicant will be in an environment with many opportunities for interactions with other researchers and trainees.
Publication record includes several 1st author publications in a top rated journal. The record goes far beyond what is expected of an applicant at the level stated. (Not required for JGS)
Reference letters are unanimously strong and provide a detailed assessment.
Academic record is outstanding, A+ level. (Not required for Post Doctoral Fellows)

Assessment Descriptor - Excellent
Numeric Score - 4.0 - 4.4

Applicant has excellent research experience and a number of presentations, distinctions, awards and credentials.
Excellent training plan at every step of training development. Progressing at an above average pace.
Excellent track record. Progressing at an above average pace and is strongly positioned to become an independent investigator. (For Post Doctoral Fellows only)
Research project has the potential to contribute substantially to knowledge in this field. The description is clear and concise providing enough methodological detail to evoke confidence that the goals of the project will be achieved within the stated timeline.
Supervisor has excellent research facilities, and is supported by on-going peer review funding. Fit between the supervisor's area of research and the student's research project is strong.
Applicant will be in an environment with opportunities for interactions with other researchers and trainees.
Publication record includes at least one 1st author publication in a top rated journal. The record is better than what is expected of an applicant at the level stated. (Not required for JGS)
Reference letters are very positive and specific details are provided.
Academic record consistently above average. A/A- level. (Not required for Post Doctoral Fellows)

Assessment Descriptor - Very Good
Numeric Score - 3.5 - 3.9

Applicant has solid research experience and is developing strong research skills.
Very good training plan at every step of training development, shows promise.
Very good track record. Progressing at a very good pace and is well positioned to become an independent investigator. (For Post Doctoral Fellows only)
Research project will offer a challenging training program for the applicant and will add to the existing knowledge in this area of research. It is well written, providing sufficient rationalization and methodological detail.
Supervisor holds on-going peer-review funding. Fit between the supervisor's area of research and the student's research is clear.
The training environment includes a number of researchers/trainees.
Publication record is very good, and includes publications in mid to high impact journals. (Not required for JGS)
Reference letters provide predominantly positive support for the applicant.
Academic record is above average, B+ level. (Not required for Post Doctoral Fellows)

Assessment Descriptor - Good
Numeric Score - 3.0 - 3.4

Applicant has moderate research experience, and has yet to start to participate in formal presentations, distinctions, awards and credentials. The applicant is developing research skills through some other activities.
Good training plan. Progressing and shows promise, but will require some support to move forward as an independent investigator.
Good track record. Progressing at a good pace, but will require support to become an independent investigator. (For Post Doctoral Fellows only)
Research project offers good training and will add to the existing knowledge in the area.
Project information is present, but it is not well integrated.
Supervisor holds peer-review funding providing the applicant access to some resources. There is a good fit between the supervisor's area of research and the student's research project.
Suitable training environment.
Publication record is good, and includes at least one publication in mid impact journal. (Not required for JGS)
Reference letters provide credible support for the applicant.
Academic record is good, B/B- level. (Not required for Post Doctoral Fellows)

Assessment Descriptor - Adequate
Numeric Score - 2.0 - 2.9

Applicant's other research experience is minimal.
Training plan (JGS/SGS) and track record (PDF) is adequate but will require strong support to move forward with future training and research.
Research project description offers limited details.
The supervisor holds some peer review funding. The fit between the supervisor's area of research and the student's research project is minimal.
There are limited opportunities for interactions with other applicants.
Publication record is adequate, and includes at least one publication in a journal. (Not required for JGS)
Reference letters provide limited support for the applicant.
Applicant's academic record is adequate for admission to most graduate schools. (Not required for Post Doctoral Fellows)

Assessment Descriptor - Less than Adequate
Numeric Score - 1.0 - 2.9

Other research activity is not listed or very minimal in nature.
Training plan(JGS/SGS) and track record (PDF) is inadequate, lacking direction and clarity. Future training is unlikely.
Research project is not well described with limited to no details of the research.
The supervisor receives an inadequate level of funding; there is no opportunity for interaction with other trainees.
Publication record inadequate. There have been no publications, may have a publication submitted or in press with a low level journal. Record is below what is expected of a student at this level. (Not required for JGS)
Reference letters do not adequately describe the applicant.
Transcripts are below adequate level. (Not required for Post Doctoral Fellows)

Weighting Table
This table represents the percentage of the score applied to each criterion.