CIHR Foundation Scheme Stage 2 Reviewer Report Form
Reviewer Name:
Applicant(s):
Title of Study:
Date of Review:
Please email this form to the Principal Applicant.
 The purpose of this form is to provide the internal reviewers with CIHR
Foundation adjudication criteria. You can directly append your detailed
comments to the draft application (instead of using this form) and send both to
the Principal Applicant.
Reviewers must take into consideration the applicant’s career stage, research field and institutional
setting when assessing each criterion.
CIHR has provided the following scale including descriptors and definitions. Reviewers are
encouraged to use the full breadth of the scale and should use the increased granularity within the top
descriptors to express differences within these categories.
Criterion 1: Quality of the Program
Sub-Criterion 1.1: Research Concept (25%)
– 10,500 characters including spaces: approx. 3 pages
 Are the goal and objectives of the proposed program well-defined and well-articulated? Grade:
 Is there conceptual coherence within the program of research?
 Are the potential short-term and long-term program outputs significant? Are they likely
to significantly advance health-related knowledge and/or its translation into improved
health care, health systems, and/or health outcomes?
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Sub-Criterion 1.2: Research Approach (25%)
– 10,500 characters including spaces: approx. 3 pages
Last update: December 11, 2015 for Foundation Scheme 2015 2nd Live Pilot



Is the research approach appropriate to deliver on the proposed program objectives?
Does the approach allow for flexibility in direction as the program evolves?
Does the approach include a high level description of how progress and success will
be measured?
 Does the approach include a plan for identifying potential challenges and applying
appropriate mitigation strategies?
Strengths:
Grade:
Weaknesses:
Criterion 2: Quality of the Expertise, Experience, and Resources
 The Foundation Scheme CV(s) will also be used as part of this assessment.
Sub-Criterion 2.1: Expertise (20%)
– 10,500 characters including spaces: approx. 3 pages
 Does the applicant have the appropriate expertise and relevant experience to lead
and manage the proposed program of research, considering its objectives and
scope?
 Is there an appropriate complement and level of engagement and/or commitment
from key Program Expert(s) and (as applicable) applicant partners?
Strengths:
Grade:
Weaknesses:
Sub-Criterion 2.2: Mentorship and Training (20%)
– 7,000 characters including spaces: approx. 2 pages
 Does the research program include a comprehensive mentorship and training plan
for building capacity and positioning students, trainees, knowledge users, emerging
scholars and/or new/early career investigators for successful research careers
and/or other career paths in non-academic health-related fields?
 Does the proposed plan demonstrate an appropriate approach for meeting its
objectives in relation to the program of research and the research field?
 Does the plan include a strategy for identifying and mitigating potential challenges?
Strengths:
Grade:
Weaknesses:
Sub-Criterion 2.3: Quality of Support Environment (10%)
– 3,500 characters including spaces: approx. 1 page
 Is the described environment(s) appropriate to enable the conduct of the program
of research, and to manage and deliver on the objectives and key components of
the proposed research program (e.g., research, knowledge translation,
mentoring/training) through the provision of, or access to, the required
infrastructure.
Strengths:
Grade:
Last update: December 11, 2015 for Foundation Scheme 2015 2nd Live Pilot
Weaknesses:
Budget Request – 3,500 characters including spaces: approx. 1 page

This is not part of the scientific assessment of the application, but reviewers are asked to make a
recommendation on the appropriateness of the funding request.

Is the requested budget appropriate in order to support the proposed program of research? Is it
realistic and well-justified, in the context of the applicants’ baseline funding amount?
 If the request is significantly higher than the applicants historical grant levels, is it appropriately
justified? Note: Justifications for CIHR funding to replace other on-going sources of funding
(e.g., health charity, provincial funding agency) are not acceptable.
Recommendations:
Other comments


While this section will not be part of the adjudication by CIHR – we have included this section to allow for
any additional comments regarding:
Summary (3,500 characters including spaces):
 The broad goal(s) of the proposed research
and clear linkage indicating how they fit the
objectives of the funding opportunity.
 A brief overview of relevant background
information and/or rationale for the proposed
research.
 Specific research aims with a brief overview of
the methodology that will be used to address
each of the research aims.
 The nature of the core expertise being brought
together to address the proposed research.
Information may include important
collaborations, within or outside of the research
community that will be accessed to achieve the
outlined research goals.
 Expected outcomes of the proposed research
highlighting the significance of the proposed
research and how it will advance knowledge
and/or its application to health care, health
systems and/or health outcomes.
CV & Most Significant Contributions (3,500
characters)
Others
 Lay Abstract (2,000 characters)
 References (7,000 characters)
 Attachments: Figures (max 2 pages)
 If applicable, gender and sex considerations
Last update: December 11, 2015 for Foundation Scheme 2015 2nd Live Pilot