The Review Process
The Review Process
This year, independent and experienced reviewers from various education, clinical and research sectors assisted with the challenge of reviewing the merit awards applications. We sincerely thank them for their expertise and commitment in delivering knowledge to help scores the applications to the Merit Award Program.
College of Reviewers
The review and scoring processes for the Merit Award Competition were designed to be as fair, thorough, and unbiased as possible. Each application was reviewed by four independent peer reviewers. These experienced faculty reviewed and scored each application using a standardized scoring system. The faculty members who served on the College of Reviewers are experienced reviewers from various education, clinical, and research sectors.
Based on the advice of the Review Committee, the department awarded 24 merit awards (funded) and 17 research commendation awards (non-funded).
The reviewers for this cycle were:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Scoring System
The Application Process
The application package and instructions are modelled after the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Foundation and Project Grant programs.
The applications will be assessed by an independent review committee. This committee comprises independent and experienced reviewers from varied education, clinical and research sectors. The committee will assist with reviewing all applications.
Please note that Faculty applying for an award will not be invited to review applications.
Additional Information:
- Decisions will be based on the score and ranking of the application and eligibility criteria.
- We seek to support research excellence as judged by standard metrics, such as peer-reviewed publications, external grants, and the development of high-quality investigators and trainees.
-
At least one award has been allocated for education-related research, although applicants will be considered for all available awards. To foster evolving areas within the specialty, one additional award will be offered for Safety and Quality Improvement Project.
The scoring criteria are as follows:
Senior Applicants (excluding New Investigators)
|
Research Summary Page |
Not scored |
|
Research Concept, Idea, and Originality |
20% |
|
Research Approach and Expertise |
40% |
|
Mentorship, Training, and Research Environment |
10% |
|
Curriculum Vitae and Research Metrics |
25% |
|
Further Criteria (see below) |
5% |
New Investigator Applicants (<5 years since faculty appointment)
|
Research Summary Page |
Not scored |
|
Research Concept, Idea, and Originality |
20% |
|
Research Approach and Expertise |
40% |
|
Mentorship, Training, and Research Environment |
30% |
|
Curriculum Vitae and Research Metrics |
8% |
|
Further Criteria (see below) |
2% |
Further Criteria
Specific Research Activity Criteria (related to this award)
Does a peer-reviewed grant already fund the research? Y/N
Will this research lead to an application for a peer-reviewed grant? Y/N
Will this merit award promote cross-disciplinary, collaborative research across hospital sites, varied academic units / or labs? Y/N
General Research Engagement Criteria
Are you appointed to the School of Graduate Studies? Y/N
Do you currently supervise graduate students? Y/N
Do you currently supervise research fellows? Y/N
Are you a member of national or international research consortium? Y/N
Does your research align with the research priorities of your hospital? Y/N
Conflicts of Interest
For transparency, it is important to note that Dr. Brian Cuthbertson, Vice Chair of Research and Innovation, was not involved in any part of the adjudication process.
No faculty member who submitted an application was invited to be a member of the College of Reviewers.
Questions
Please contact us if you have questions or concerns related to the review process.