Microsoft Word - CIHR2012 Grant Review Process and Procedures memo

Document Sample
Microsoft Word - CIHR2012 Grant Review Process and Procedures memo Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                       Office of the Associate Dean - Research
                                                                       A108 Chown
                                                                       753 McDermot Avenue
                                 Faculty of Medicine                   Winnipeg, Manitoba
                                                                       Canada R3E 0T6
                                                                       Telephone (204) 789-3375
                                                                       Fax (204) 789-3942

May 28, 2012

TO:         Faculty of Medicine Researchers

FROM:       Peter Nickerson, Associate Dean (Research)
            Kevin M. Coombs, Assistant Dean (Research)
            Lorrie Kirshenbaum, Director, Research Enhancement

RE:         REVISED timeline for submission of applications to CIHR September 2012
            Operating competitions – REVISED Process and Procedures

As indicated in previous correspondence from this office (May 27, 2011), the Faculty of Medicine has
been using an internal pre-review process for CIHR Operating grants. Evaluation of metrics indicates
this process greatly improves success probability. After continued consultation with various
stakeholders, we have decided the next step in this continuing process is to institute revised processes
for Operating Grants that will be submitted to CIHR in September 2012. This process, which is
detailed in the attached documents, is both endorsed and financially supported by the Dean of
Medicine and the Vice President of Research. Please note that all faculty members, whether
submitting new or revised applications to these competitions, are expected to participate in this
process. Participation may be considered as part of your yearly annual departmental performance

Please also note ORS deadlines remain to be determined; these will be provided by that office at a
later date.

Thank you, and good luck in the upcoming competitions!
 Highlights of major changes:
      •   Junior faculty members have been added to the College of Reviewers
      •   Preliminary grant applications are still due ~5 weeks before the deadline, and the panel
          reviews will occur ~4 weeks prior to agency deadline, allowing more time to make
      •   Applicants may contact one External Reviewer knowledgeable in their field. The
          External Reviewer will be provided an honorarium of $200 by our office. The External is
          expected to participate in the panel review by either Skype (preferred) or by
                                                     (May 2012)

The time-­­line for the September 2012 pre-­­review process in outlined in the following Table.

           Table 1. Schedule for submission of review material for September
             2012 CIHR Operating Grants

                                                    CIHR Competition:             Sept 2012

           Complete "Request for Panel Review Form" and submit to Dr.         Aug. 7, 2012;
           Lorrie Kirshenbaum (                                17:00 (5:00pm)
           Electronically submit doc, wpd or pdf version of Summary,
           Research Proposal, and, if applicable, previous CIHR reviews       Aug. 8, 2012;
           and SO notes, as well as your Responses to Reviews; all to Dr.     20:00 (8:00pm)
           Lorrie Kirshenbaum
           Applications will be sent to reviewers by Dr. Kirshenbaum's
                                                                              Aug. 10, 2012

                                                                              Aug. 15, 2012;
           Submit official Registration to CIHR
                                                                              22:58 (10:58pm)

                                                                              Aug. 15 - 17,
              PANEL REVIEWS

           Provide Nancy Klos (ORS, T151) with complete application for           Sept 4,
           her review                                                             2012

                                                                              Sept. 15, 2012;
           Submit Complete Final Application electronically to ORS
                                                                              Time TBA

           ** Tentative; reviews will take place during this week but specific dates not yet set,
           and are dependent upon when External and Internal Reviewers can be scheduled

The panel review process consists of applicants meeting with a panel of (usually) 3 individuals;
an External reviewer from outside the University of Manitoba, an Internal Expert who should
be generally knowledgeable of the subject material, and an Internal “non-­­expert” who reads for
general clarity. At least one of the reviewers must be from a department different from the
applicant’s. Given that CIHR is moving towards translational research, it also is advisable that
basic and clinical expertise be represented on the panel. The face--­to-­­face panel meetings
generally last ~ 1½ hours and the Summary page, Previous CIHR Reviews and Responses (if
applicable), and 11-­­13 page Research Proposal are carefully scrutinized.
     Applicants are advised to select a knowledgeable External reviewer and to
     contact that person to determine if s/he is willing to review the application
     and to participate in an ~ 1½ hour meeting between August 15 – 17. Our
     office will pay a $200 honorarium as partial recognition for the reviewer’s efforts.

As before, applicants wishing to benefit from this enhanced review process shall complete the
attached “Request for Panel Review Form” and make various submissions by the indicated
deadlines (indicated in above Table). Applicants are asked to nominate 4--­6 reviewers from the
attached list. No more than 2 of those reviewers may hold a primary appointment in the
applicant’s home department and 2 must be non-­­experts who will evaluate for general
scientific clarity. Applications will be forwarded to 2 of these internal reviewers as well as to
the external expert.

Applicants will meet with their 3-­­member review panel approximately 4 weeks prior to the
grant submission deadline. The panel will provide an overview of the strengths and
weaknesses and also provide detailed and ruthlessly honest feedback. Applicants are expected
to take detailed notes and will not be allowed an opportunity for rebuttal (remember; your
grant does not have a rebuttal process when it is being “torn apart” in Ottawa!). Although this
review panel will conduct a ruthlessly honest and candid evaluation, please remember that this
review is ultimately for the benefit of your application and please take all comments in the
helpful light in which they will be offered.

              Please note: You are strongly encouraged to obtain evaluative
              feedback on your grant submissions, whether you make use of
             this panel review process or not. In addition, obtaining feedback
                     from several sources at various times is advised.

Helpful questions to guide grant construction:
   1. Does your application contain clear testable hypothesis(es)?
   2. Does the Background contain sufficient necessary information and is it suitably succinct
      (≤ 4 pages), leaving ample space to describe experimental rational, expectations, pitfalls,
      and alternate strategies?
   3. Are there clearly defined Aims, completion of which adequately test the hypothesis(es)?
   4. Have you clearly articulated why you are uniquely qualified to perform the suggested
      studies (including preliminary results, your expertise, collaborators and Institutional
   5. Is the study novel, or merely “more of the same”?
   6. Is the importance of your study clearly defined within the context of CIHR’s Strategic
   7. Does the application contain excessive abbreviations and acronyms? Consider a Table of
      abbreviations to include in the appendix.
   8. Have you included a timeline? If expressed as a Figure, it can be placed in your appendix
      and not take up valuable application space.
   9. Is the application free of mistakes and aesthetically pleasing? Margin, font size and line
      spacing regulations must be adhered to, and it is helpful to separate paragraphs with
      additional space; every square millimeter of space does not need to be filled with text!
   10. Have you included figures; but not too many? A picture is worth a thousand words.
   11. If this is a resubmission, have all the reviewers comments been addressed in a non-­­
       combative manner?
12. If this is are-submission, and has been multiple times, consider whether the subject
   matter and or expertise are sufficient or whether a change in direction is warranted.
                          COLLEGE OF INTERNAL REVIEWERS

Allan Becker                   Spencer Gibson                         David Merz
Sharon Bruce                   Andrew Halayko                         Redwan Moqbel
Lin-­­Ping Choo-­­Smith        Grant Hatch                            Leigh Murphy
Kevin Coombs                   Kent Hayglass                          Peter Nickerson
Brian Cox                      Robert Hoppa                           Grant Pierce
Michael Czubryt                Larry Hryshko                          Steven Pind
Marc Del Bigio                 Peter Jones                            Jitender Sareen
Jim Davie                      Larry Jordan                           Garry Shen
Roxanne DesLauriers            Alan Katz                              Daniel Sitar
Hao Ding                       Gilbert Kirouac                        Abdelilah Soussi Gounni
Ian Dixon                      Lorrie Kirshenbaum                     Robert Tate
Mary Lynn Duckworth            Sabine Mai                             Barbara Triggs--­Raine
Hani El-­­Gabalawy             Jeffrey Marcus                         Carla Taylor
Paul Fernyhough                Aaron Marshall                         Jeff Wigle
Keith Fowke                    Patricia Martens                       John Wilkins
Phillip Gardiner               Susan McClement                        Xi Yang

                          ADDITIONAL INTERNAL REVIEWERS

Chris Anderson
Cynthia Ellison
Jiming Kong
Sam Kung                                         This list still being built; junior
Kirk McManus                                     faculty have been asked
Suresh Mishra
Fiona Parkinson
Louise Simard
Jorg Stetefeld

Shared By: