1. Considerations for CIHR’s New Open Program

2. The Context Bottom up Strategy Reform of Open Suite of Programs Full spectrum of CIHR mandate Top Down Strategy Strategic Reform The objective of the “top down” strategy is to targeted to specific areas of health research and knowledge translation. Programs and initiatives are intended to: Focus on gaps in specific research areas and research communities or Leverage existing strengths for impact Reform to the Peer Review System The overall objective of CIHR’s open suite of programs is to contribute to a sustainable foundation of excellence for the Canadian Health Research Enterprise, by supporting world-class researchers in the conduct of research and knowledge translation across the spectrum of health. 2

3. Existing open programs include: OOGP (including RCTs) New Investigators program PHSI KT Synthesis Knowledge to Action Science to Business POP MPDs CHRP IPCR Masters Doctoral Postdoctoral Fellowships Today….. Stable Open Suite: Future….. Annual budget of~$530M The Context 3 Project Scheme Program Scheme Direct Training Scheme Indirectly Funded Training

4. The objective of the Open reform is to design a core suite of programs that: capture excellence across all pillars capture innovative/breakthrough research improve sustainability of the long-term research enterprise integrate new talent Any program design/change and implementation must take into consideration impacts on: peer review burden applicant burden program complexity cost-effectiveness and efficiency stability (regular and predictable competitions, stable program designs) Objectives 4

5. International Review Panel Chairs and Scientific Officers Toronto Forum Institutes and their communities Surveys and Petitions University Delegates CIHR Roadmap Reliability/Consistency of Reviews Peer Reviewer Workload Expertise Availability Conservative Nature of Peer Review / Support for High Risk Projects Committee Proliferation Program Complexity/Too many Boutique Programs Applicant Burden/”Churn” Partnerships not Fully Valued (integrated KT) Application process/ Attributes not capturing the correct information Feedback received from stakeholders, IRP recommendations and observations, and CIHR’s own analysis have identified some key challenges that need to be address by the design: The Context Sufficient Support for New Investigators 5

6. Applicant Burden/”Churn” Current Challenge Possibilities being considered to address this challenge… Program Complexity /Too many Boutique Programs A limited number of funding schemes with clear and measureable objectives – increases applicants understanding of what CIHR is trying to achieve through its programming OOGP and a number of existing boutique programs merged into a new set of funding schemes – reduces the number of programs. Clearly communicated application requirements supported by applicant self-screening tools – increases applicants awareness of how applications will be assessed Design Considerations Multi-phased application process with short phase 1 applications – reduces amount of work required to complete an application Longer term funding for programs of research - reduces the need to apply as frequently Application process/ Attributes not capturing the correct information Structured application process – facilitates capturing the necessary information to review and assess different types of programs and projects 6

7. Current Challenge Partnerships not Fully Valued (integrated KT) Funding schemes will encourage and in some cases require partners and collaborators in the application process – mainstreams integrated knowledge translation into CIHR programming Design Considerations Sufficient Support for New Investigators Specific incentives for new investigators – provides mechanisms to ensure that new investigators are supported by the new funding schemes Conservative Nature of Peer Review / Support for High Risk Projects Dedicated funding for novel, innovative and high risk research projects Anonymous phase 1 applications for project scheme – reduces bias in the review process Researcher and knowledge user specialists, generalists and citizen reviewers to be involved in the review process – brings different perspectives to the review Possibilities being considered to address this challenge… 7

8. Current Challenge Reliability/ Consistency of Reviews Development of a reviewer training program – sets expectations about how reviews should be conducted and improves consistency of reviews Structured reviews and review criteria - improves consistency and transparency Design Considerations Peer Reviewer Workload Introduction of virtual review process – provides reviewers with more flexibility to complete reviews Multi-phased review process with shorter phase 1 applications – allows for the screening of applications and reduces the amount of time it takes to review an application Introduction of structured review – reduces/eliminates requirement for extensive reviewer notes Possibilities being considered to address this challenge… Committee Proliferation An application-centric review process - ensures that the “right” combination of experts (specialists and generalists) are brought together to review a specific application. Virtual review process – eliminates the reliance on a set of specific standing committees 8

9. Current Challenge Design Considerations Possibilities being considered to address this challenge… Expertise Availability Establishment of a College of Reviewers – facilitates ready access to trained reviewers Application centric review process with an emphasis on multiple dimensions – ensures that the “right” combination of experts (specialists and generalists) are brought together to review a specific application. 9 There are a number of dimensions that can be considered to “match” applications to reviewers. Which dimensions are most important for review has yet to be determined……