Internal Peer Review Report

Internal Peer Review Feedback (PRF) Form

(Required for CIHR Operating Grant Submissions in the Faculty of Health Sciences)

The form is locked (please do not unlock). Tab to complete the text fields and check boxes requiring responses. Text fields will expand as you type.

Applicant / Nominated Principal Investigator:
Dept / Program / Centre or Institute:
Grant Title:
Competition Deadline (insert Day, Month and Year):
INSTRUCTIONS:

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.
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.
The Reviewer reassesses the revised application, completes and signs a new PRF form and returns it to the Applicant.
The Applicant sends the PRF form signed by the Reviewer and a copy of the Application to the Peer Review Facilitator for signature.
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
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.

Internal Peer Reviewer

Thank you for agreeing to review the above-noted CIHR application. Please respond to the following questions:

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:

Please sign and return the completed form to the Applicant.

Signature of Internal Peer Reviewer / Printed Name of Internal Peer Reviewer / Date

Peer Review Facilitator

As the head of the research program, research centre or institute, or research coordinator for the department of the above-noted Applicant, I have reviewed the Internal Peer Reviewer’s Report above and recommend/ do not recommend (check one only) the submission of the attached application.

Please sign and return the completed form to the Applicant.

Signature of Internal Peer Review Facilitator / Printed Name of Internal Peer Review Facilitator / Date

Last revised: July 13, 2009