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

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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