Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "How a Grant is Ranked and Scored?". CIHR Process."— Presentation transcript:

1 How a Grant is Ranked and Scored?"

2 CIHR Process

3 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

4 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.

5 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….

6 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

7 The Rating





12 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.

13 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)

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

Similar presentations

Ads by Google