I NTERNAL PEER REVIEW FEEDBACK (PRF) FORM (REQUIRED FOR

Applicant / Nominated Principal Investigator:

     

Dept / Program / Centre or Institute:

     

Grant Title:

     

Competition Deadline (insert Day, Month and Year):

     

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Constructive advice to the Applicant will allow him/her to improve the quality and efficiency of the proposed research. The Applicant will receive the review as it is submitted by the Internal Peer Reviewer.

2. If the Internal Peer Reviewer does not recommend the application be submitted as is (i.e. answers “No” to any of the questions below), the Reviewer will return the PRF to the Applicant for revision and resubmission of the application to the Reviewer.

3. The Reviewer reassesses the revised application, completes and signs a new PRF form and returns it to the Applicant.

4. The Applicant sends the PRF form signed by the Reviewer and a copy of the Application to the Peer Review Facilitator for signature.

5. The Applicant delivers the fully signed PRF form and completed HRS Checklist (refer to checklist instructions) signed by the Department Chair to the office of Health Research Services, HSC-1B7. Questions? Email [email protected]

6. The office of Health Research Services will not process the CIHR grant application for institutional signature if the Peer Review Facilitator has not signed this form recommending submission of the application.

Please provide a brief synopsis:      

Is the grant application hypothesis driven?

Yes No

Are the aims clearly stated?

Yes No

Is the literature review critical and balanced?

Yes No

Does the “research plan” flow logically?

Yes No

Are the statistical approaches clearly described?

Yes No

Is the clinical and scientific relevance clear and persuasive?

Yes No

Is the “Summary of Research Proposal” page well organized in terms of headings, spacing, layout, etc (ie: is it visually appealing)?

Yes No

Is the budget appropriate for the Applicant’s stature and the work proposed?

Yes No

Are the budget items justified?

Yes No

For resubmissions only: Did the Applicant respond in an appropriate manner to external reviewer’s criticisms?

Yes No

Do you think this proposal will score 3.5 or higher at CIHR (i.e. category for “Very Good”)?

Yes No

Comments? Please feel free to expand upon your responses to the above questions:      

     

     

Signature of Internal Peer Reviewer

Printed Name of Internal Peer Reviewer

Date

     

     

Signature of Internal Peer Review Facilitator

Printed Name of Internal Peer Review Facilitator

Date