Isobel Parkin AAFC Saskatoon Research Centre NSERC SPG Isobel Parkin AAFC Saskatoon Research Centre 1

Evaluation Process Prior to meeting Reviewers selected from committee Suggest external reviewers Clarify any issues with NSERC Score the proposals

Committee Meeting Primary reviewer summarises the grant and describes how it meets the seven criteria 2nd and 3rd reviewer will add comments All panel members may comment Discrepancies in scores will be discussed Score for each criteria will be agreed Once all reviews completed: List is compiled of scores and ranking Based on the ranking and the estimated dollar allocation: A List – Must be funded B List – Worth funding if funds allow C list – Not worth funding Comments for applicant are written by primary reviewer

Things To Remember About Panel Members Reviewers may not be experts in your field Reviewers have hundreds of pages of text to read Reviewers will notice things that you don’t expect

Evaluation Criteria each treated Equally Criterion 1: Originality of Research Criterion 2 – Quality of Research Ensure there are obvious short and long term goals Criterion 3 – Project Work Plan Quantifiable milestones, relationship to project description Role of applicants, co-applicants and requested staff clearly defined Possible problems identified, possible solutions

Criterion 4 – Quality of the Applicants as Researchers Ensure adequate expertise, seek out appropriate collaborations Criterion 5 – Training Potential Established vs ‘new’ researchers Criterion 6 – Interactions with Non-academic Participating Organisations Must be active involvement Criterion 7 – Benefits to Canada and the Non-academic Participating Organisations Usually most neglected criterion

Common Problems Inadequate description of overlap with other sources of funding Apparent poor communication between applicants, co-applicants and collaborators and most damaging with the STRATEGIC PARTNER Errors in budget Resubmissions which have failed to address reviewers comments