CIHR changes peer review system following working meeting ordered by Health minister

Mark Henderson
August 18, 2016

The embattled Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has agreed to modify its controversial new on-line peer review system. The move followed a terse directive from Health minister Jane Philpott to hold a July 13 emergency working meeting to address a tidal wave of dissent from thousands of health researchers across the country (R$, July 8/16).

The decision to implement a hybrid system of peer review was closely followed by a delayed announcement of results of its Project Grant and Foundation Grant competitions, which yielded a 13% success rate.

According to a CIHR statement on the July 13 working meeting, the hybrid system agreed upon includes the following features:

• Face-to-face discussions will be restored and virtual discussions will no longer be needed;

• Teams of virtual chairs and scientific officers will be organized to oversee a group of applications throughout the process;

• A complementary iterative process will be implemented for indigenous focussed research;

• A working group will be created to further refine the recommendations moving forward.

The decision to institute several immediate changes is being described as a "first step". The freshly minted Peer Review Working Group — led by Dr Paul Kubes, a Univ of Calgary professor and researcher — will further "advise CIHR on the implementation of peer review changes before the launch of the next Project Grant and Foundation Grant competitions". The working group held a face-to-face meeting August 5 to "focus specifically on the peer review process and how it will move forward."

The results of the recent competitions — delayed twice while the now-modified on-line evaluation system was being prepared — have further exacerbated frustration within the researcher community. Dr David Kent, a research at the Univ of Cambridge's Stem Cell Institute, referred to the process as a "gong show" while other researchers lamented the low quality of some on-line reviewers, some of whom didn't even bother to participate.

The Project Grant competition resulted in 491 grants funded at an average size of $791,000 over four years, including 98 grants to new- or early-stage investigators. An additional 127 bridge grants were also awarded resulting in a total investment of $375.6 million over five years.

The Foundation Grant competition awarded $292 million over seven years for 120 research programs with an average grant size of $2.4 million. The mid-career grant average for 87 recipients was $3.3 million and $1.1 million for 33 new- and early-career investigators.

R$


Other News






Events For Leaders in
Science, Tech, Innovation, and Policy


Discuss and learn from those in the know at our virtual and in-person events.



See Upcoming Events










You have 1 free article remaining.
Don't miss out - start your free trial today.

Start your FREE trial    Already a member? Log in






Top

By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies. We use cookies to provide you with a great experience and to help our website run effectively in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.