Print

ASRP evaluation process for research applications

Recruit Peer Review Panels
  • Each chair (from the Biomedical and Quality of Life Peer Review Panels) will recommend reviewers based on their area(s) of expertise. Members will serve for a term of three years
Down arrow
Assignment of applications
  • Applications are assigned to either the Quality of Life or Biomedical Panel based on the stream selected by the applicant
  • A primary reviewer and secondary reviewer are then assigned to each application based on their area of expertise. In the event that additional expertise is required, an external reviewer will be contacted to provide an additional review
  • In instances where conflict of interest is declared, applications are reassigned to a different reviewer
Down arrow
Review of applications
Each reviewer evaluates assigned applications by providing:
  1. A summary of the proposal and an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses in relation to ASRP criteria
  2. Comments on budget and comments on any matters that are flagged due to conflict with governing policies, or for other reasons
  3. A score between 0 and 4.9, where ratings of 3.5 or higher are considered to be within the fundable range
Description Range Outcome
Outstanding 4.5-4.9 May be funded, will be discussed by the Peer Review Panel
Excellent 4.0-4.4
Very good 3.5-3.9
Acceptable, but low priority 3.0-3.4 Not fundable, may or may not be discussed by the Peer Review Panel
Needs revision 2.5-2.9
Needs major revision 2.0-2.4
Seriously flawed 1.0-1.9
Rejected 0-0.9
Down arrow
Peer Review Committee meeting
Each reviewer evaluates assigned applications:
  • During this face-to-face meeting, individuals who are in conflict with the application being discussed leave the room
  • Assigned reviewers announce their scores. Those applications that receive scores of less than 3.5 by both reviewers are eliminated at the discretion of the panel. Assessments are then presented by each reviewer, and where relevant, reviews from external reviewers are read by the Chair. The Chair then leads a discussion with the committee, and seeks a consensus score from the assigned reviewers
  • All committee members then submit a confidential score for the application within +/- 0.5 of the average score of the two assigned reviewers and the average of the total scores is the final rating that will be assigned to the application
  • Budget and term of funding are then discussed
  • Notes are taken to record discussion of each application
Down arrow
Recommendation for funding/approval
Each reviewer evaluates assigned applications:
  • The approved budget for the annual research competition is allocated to each application deemed fundable based on the assigned scores. Funding is applied from the top of the ranking list until expended
  • The RPC makes a recommendation to the Board of Directors that the final list be funded. The Board of Directors then provides final approval
  • Applicants are notified of the status of their applications by email. A list of successful grants and awards is posted on the ASC website

Last Updated: 02/17/16
Back to top