How a Grant is Ranked and Scored?". CIHR Process.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Preparation of the Self-Study and Documentation
Advertisements

1 Solicitations/Advertisements Solicitations/Advertisements
How to succeed with postdoc fellowship applications Madhukar Pai, MD, PhD Associate Professor, McGill University, Montreal Associate Director, McGill International.
Promotion and Tenure Faculty Senate May 8, To be voted on.
Calista AVCP Regional Energy Plan. Preliminary Planning and Stakeholder Involvement Resource Inventory and Data Analysis Develop and Review Draft Energy.
Customer Success is Our Mission MILCOM 2008 Reviewer Guidelines Rev B 8 July 2008.
Tüzin BAYCAN-LEVENT ERC Advanced Grant Evaluation.
CAREER WORKSHOP APRIL 9, 2014 Putting a Face on the CAREER Peer Review Process Ross Ellington Associate Vice President for Research FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY.
How to write a Research Grant? or How to get a grant rejected? Spencer Gibson Provincial Director, Research CancerCare Manitoba.
Strengths of Funded & Weaknesses of Unfunded MRI Proposals
February 19, 2015 Guelph, Ontario. 1. Advisory Committee on University-Industry Grants (ACUIG) 2. Review Process: Things to Focus On 3. Don’t do the Following.
The Proposal Review Process Matt Germonprez Mutual of Omaha Associate Professor ISQA College of IS&T.
Evaluator for Marie Curie EU Postdoctoral Fellowships Life Science Panel IEF - Intra-European Fellowships IIF- International Incoming Fellowships IOF -
How Your Application Is Reviewed Vonda Smith, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer (SRO)
HARRINGTON d e p a r t m e n t of b I o e n g i n e e r i n g Eric J. Guilbeau, Ph.D. Olin Professor and Chair Bioengineering Seed Grant Program.
PRESENTER: DR. ROBERT KLESGES PROFESSOR OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AND MEMBER, DEPARTMENT OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND.
QUALIFYING EXAM PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS AND GRADING 2004 Ian Waitz.
How to Improve your Grant Proposal Assessment, revisions, etc. Thomas S. Buchanan.
THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS David Armstrong, Ph.D.
Dr. Kay Pasley Norejane Hendrickson Professor Chair, Family and Child Sciences.
NIH Review Procedures Betsy Myers Hospital for Special Surgery.
SSHRC Partnership and Partnership Development Grants Rosemary Ommer 1.
4) It is a measure of semi-independence and your PI may treat you differently since your fellowship will be providing salary support. 2) Fellowship support.
PROMOTION AND TENURE FOR CLINICAL SCIENTISTS – BOTH PATHWAYS Peter Emanuel, M.D. Laura Lamps, M.D.
Phase 1: Preliminary Investigation or Feasibility study
Scientific Merit Review René St-Arnaud, Ph.D. Shriners Hospital and McGill University CCAC National Workshop May 13, 2010, Ottawa (Ontario)
DOSSIER PREPARATION MENTORING PROGRAM Session #4 June 23, 2015  CV and Summary Statements (feedback)  Review Teaching Statement of Endeavors and Supporting.
19/9/2005 Promotion and Tenure: Suggestions for Success Kimberly W. Anderson Professor Chemical and Materials Engineering.
Three Faces of a Critique Oral presentation critique Critique of an academic paper Critique of a building.
Checking off your tenure “to do” list Maureen Gannon, PhD Vanderbilt University Medical Center Associate Professor of Medicine, Molecular Physiology and.
Tips on Fellowship Writing A Reviewer’s Perspective Wendy Havran.
Demystifying Academic Appointments and Promotions Karen Freund MD MPH Chair, Appointments and Promotions Boston University School of Medicine FDDC September.
Promotion guide Understanding the tracks Librarian – tenure and non-tenure tracks Clinicians and Researchers - tenure and two non-tenure tracks –Tenure.
DOSSIER PREPARATION MENTORING PROGRAM Session #3 June 17, 2014  CV and Summary Statements (feedback)  Review Teaching Statement of Endeavors and Supporting.
KKC’s Assessment Academy Project Update August 2012.
How is a grant reviewed? Prepared by Professor Bob Bortolussi, Dalhousie University
CHAPTER 16 Preparing Effective Proposals. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS  Conducting a Preliminary Assessment  Prior to Writing the Proposal  How Fundable.
Response to Prior Review and Resubmission Strategies Yuqing Li, Ph.D Division of Movement Disorders Department of Neurology Center for Movement Disorders.
HOW TO REVIEW AN ARTICLE E. SIMPSON, UK. Reviewing scientific papers and grant applications Elizabeth Simpson Emeritus professor of transplantation biology.
Intellectual Merit & Broader Impact Statements August 2016
Aid Transparency Assessment
NATA Foundation Student Grants Process
Presenter: dr. Robert Klesges Professor of Preventive Medicine
Isobel Parkin AAFC Saskatoon Research Centre
DOSSIER PREPARATION MENTORING PROGRAM
NATA Foundation General Grants Program Process
NSF/NIH Review Processes University of Southern Mississippi
NSF/NIH Review Processes University of Southern Mississippi
Project Grant: Fall 2016 Competition
What Reviewers look for NIH F30-33(FELLOWSHIP) GRANTS
Look Beneath the Surface Regional Anti-Trafficking Program
RES 562 RANK Experience Tradition / res562rank.com.
RES 562 RANK Education for Service-- res562rank.com.
RES 562 RANK Perfect Education/ res562rank.com.
Critical - thinking Assessment Test (CAT)
Provost’s Merit Pay Initiative
FISH 521 Further proceedings Peer review
Intellectual Merit & Broader Impact Statements August 2018
Turn to page 26. Read the Conclusion
School of Dentistry Education Research Fund (SDERF)
FSGP Process Step 1: Review of Scientific Merit
WCHRI Innovation Grants Application information session 2018
Intellectual Merit & Broader Impact Statements August 2017
WCHRI Innovation Grants Application information session 2019
Implementation Projects
WCHRI Innovation Grants
What to include in your personal evaluation
NATA Foundation General Grants Program Process
CPSC 699 Fall 2014 PubliCATIONS.
Intellectual Merit & Broader Impact Statements August 2019
Presentation transcript:

How a Grant is Ranked and Scored?"

CIHR Process

Written evaluations include:  A brief synopsis of the proposal  An assessment of the proposal (strengths and weaknesses) in relation to the evaluation criteria  Comments on issues that should be flagged  Comments on the budget requested

Applicant: Smith, John Title: Role of butyrate in curing cancer Request: $154,870 for five years Assessment of Applicant: Dr John Smith is a Full Professor in the Department of Cancer Biology etc etc etc. He has published a total of 158 papers, one book and 21 book chapters. During the past five years, he has published 55 papers (37 as contributing author) published in good to very good journals. His research program is currently funded by grants from CBCF, Terry Fox Foundation (co-PI) and CCSRI (co-PI). The applicant’s research group has expertise in the majority of the methods to be applied in this proposal and has called in collaborators when needed.

Proposal: The applicant will study the mechanism of action of butyrate…. Two specific aims were proposed: Aim 1: … Aim 2 ……… Preliminary data: The applicant demonstrated that butyrate…. Critique: The preliminary data demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed work. Strengths…. Weaknesses….

Summary This is an excellent proposal that incorporates studies to explore the structural and functional aspects of butyrate….. Budget The budget is reasonable. Recommended term 5 years. Rating 4.4

The Rating

CCSRI Review Process Chart showing panel average score (▲) and individual reviewers scores (●) for each application. Numbers after applicant's name reflects the level of enthusiasm of the panel for each application. For example Smith (8/1/4) would indicate that of the 8 reviewers in the room scoring this application, 1 suggested that it must be funded while 4 put the application at their desirable funding level. The absence of numbers after the applicants name indicates that no reviewer suggested the application be funded.

Panel expertise: Range of applications: Number of applications: Renewals: 8 New: 30 Reapplications: 9 Cut-offs:  hard: 4.10 and above; 8 applications (18% success rate)  soft: 3.99 and above Project summaries: Report from Chair to Advisory Committee on Research (ACOR)