CIHR Foundation Pilot 1 - McMaster Faculty of Health Sciences

CIHR Foundation Pilot 1 - McMaster Faculty of Health Sciences

Foundation Scheme Pilot 1: What? Who? When? How? Lori Burrows, PhD CIHR University Delegate June 12, 2014 What? First Pilot competition of CIHRs new Foundation Scheme: 5-7 year grants aimed at scientific LEADERS. If successful, you cannot hold other CIHR open grants as PI during the span of your Foundation grant. You can be a co-investigator on other Foundation or Project grants. Existing grants will be rolled into your Foundation grant. If unsuccessful, you WILL NOT LOSE EXISTING GRANTS. Many elements of this competition remain uncertain, because they are still in development and may yet change based on the results of ongoing pilots. example of still in development The adjudication criteria considered at Stage 1 and 2 are different. A

detailed description of these criteria can be found within the CIHR Adjudication and Selection Process Manual for the 2014 Foundation Scheme Competition. (link to come) Money available for 2014/15 The combined total amount available for 2014-15 Transitional OOGP and Foundation Pilot is ~$500M. The two competitions overlap for the first timeunclear how this will play out in terms of total number funded. 120 to 250 Foundation grants may be funded; most Foundation grant budget requests will fall within a range of $50K to $1.5M per annum. The budget request should be consistent with the applicant's previous CIHR open grant research funding history. TIP: You can point out that your historic request was higher than the amount you actually got, due to ATB cuts. Who? You must fit CIHRs independent researcher definition & a) be the PI or co-PI on an open CIHR grant that ends between Oct 1, 2014 and Sept 30, 2015, or

b) be an established investigator (>5 yr since 1st appt) who has never held a CIHR open grant as PI or co-PI, or c) be a new investigator (<5 yr since 1st appointment); leaves of absence arent included, and part time appointments will be pro-rated up to the maximum of 60 months post-appointment CIHR will verify your eligibility at registration. What are defined as open grants? Open Operating Grant Program (OOGP) Partnerships for Health System Improvement (PHSI) Knowledge Synthesis Grant (KRS) Knowledge to Action Grant (KAL) Proof of Principle Program Phase I and II (POP I and POP II) Industry-Partnered Collaborative Research (IPCR) New names for PI and co-I Program Leader: individual responsible for setting and overseeing the intellectual and strategic direction of the research. Non-Canadian PLs must have Canadian co-Leader. Program Leader Administrative Coordinator: must be a PL, at

Canadian institution; assumes all responsibility for administrative matters related to the grant including submitting the application and coordinating any required reporting Program Expert: participates in or contributes to the program of research but does not direct the program; may or may not be involved for the entire length of the grant; may or may not be named on the grant at discretion of PL TIP: CVs of Experts are not included or assessed in Foundation applications, and they are not named in funding decisions. They can document their involvement in Foundation grants in their CVs, reports, etc., as agreed upon with the Program Leader(s), and they can apply for Project grants. When? Registration June 23, 2014 Stage 1 Application Sept 15, 2014 Stage 1 Decision Dec 1, 2014 Stage 2 Application Feb 5, 2015 Stage 2 Decision May 15, 2015 Stage 3 Decision July 2, 2015 Funding Start July 1, 2015 (yes, before the stage 3 decision)

How? 1. Register via ResearchNet by June 23, 8 pm 2. If you pass the eligibility test, CIHR will send a link for the stage 1 application, due Sept 15, 2014, 8 pm 3. If unsuccessful at stage 1 (decision in Dec 2014), you can apply to the Spring 2015 Transitional OGP, registration deadline Jan 2015. 4. If successful at stage 1, you can apply to stage 2 OR to the Spring TOGPnot both. TIP: Depending on the comments at stage 1, and projected success rates at stages 2 and 3, you may want to consider whether you go forward, or bail out to the TOGP. If you go forward to stage 2 and are unsuccessful, you will have to wait until Fall 2015 to re-apply, with no money until July 2016 even if you succeed the second time. 2014 2015 NO (87%?)

NO (87%?) Mar/14 OOGP chose to renew early Sept/14 Fdn Pilot $ Oct/14 choose to skip Fdn Mar/15 transitional

OOGP NO YES (13%?) $ July/15 decided not to go forward to stage 2 Feb/15 YES $ July/15 stage 2 (May/15) MAYBE May/15 stage 3 (July/15)

choose to renew early Sept/15 Fdn Pilot NO REAPPLY NO REAPPLY choose to Mar/16 Project

skip Fdn NO YES (13%?) Sept/14 stage 1 (Dec/14) YES 2016 YES Sept/15 stage 1 (Dec/15) $ July/16 decided

not to go forward to stage 2 YES Feb/16 YES $ July/16 stage 2 (May/16) MAYBE May/16 stage 3 (July/16) YES YES $ July/15

$ July/16 NO REAPPLY NO REAPPLY Sept/16 Fdn Sept/16 Project YES $ April/17 How do I register? You need a ResearchNet account, a CIHR

PIN and a Common CV account. the Common CV fill out the CIHR version of the Common CV TIP: this can take significant time! to register for the pilot, pick CIHR as the agency and registration for the format validate it and and click submit (it doesnt go anywhere) the system will generate a confirmation number that needs to be entered into the registration application on ResearchNet if you change anything, you need to repeat this process, the confirmation number will change on ResearchNet Under Apply for Funding, pick Foundation Scheme. and follow the instructions. The Program Leader(s) must not change between registration and application. You must provide a 5 (new investigators) or 7 yr

budget estimate. You dont need to justify at this point, and you can change it at stage 2. TIP: For new people, look at CIHRs funding database for historic amounts handed out for the type of work youre proposing to do Suggest reviewers. This is critical, as these people will be recruited into the College of Reviewers. Exclude reviewers you dont want. Whats my competition like? as of June 6, 43 registrations completed, 874 in progress 305 are current grant holders; 278 have never held CIHR grants as PI (might be some overlap); 267 are new investigators and 67 are undefined includes registrations opened on specbut CIHR expects more at the last minute CIHR is expecting ~1200 bona fide applicants, despite high numbers of registrants (since many will register but not submit). But, they are surprised at the new investigator numbers so far

Stage 1 application (in development) Detailed instructions (soon) available on ResearchNet under Opportunities, Foundation Scheme. To complete your Stage 1 Application, follow the instructions in the Foundation Scheme: 1st Live Pilot ResearchNet "Application" Phase Instructions. (link to come) Stage 1 application content Program Leader(s) will need to generate a Foundation Scheme CV using the Common CV SHORT stage 1 application has 3 sections: Summary (1 page) Caliber of the Applicant (1.5 pages, 75%) -Leadership (1/2 page, 25%) Significance of contributions (1/2 page, 25%) Productivity (1/2 page, 25%) Vision and Program Direction (1 page, 25%)

Program Leaders CV See website for details of what is to be included. Only select contributions, with maximum numbers per section. e.g. Publications (Most relevant up to 25) Program Leaders will provide information regarding their publications in the form of journal articles, books, book chapters, reports, manuals, clinical care guidelines, and/or conference publications. Summary (1 page) summarize research experience and vision of the research program: overarching focus of research career, major questions or issues explored, and the impact of the research; expertise and experience; Important collaborations, within or outside of the research community; and vision or direction of the program of research to advance knowledge and/or its application to health care, health systems, and/or health outcomes.

TIP: the Summary is a MARKETING DOCUMENT SELL YOURSELF! Leadership (1/2 page) highlight significant and effective leadership experience, reputation in your field and evidence that youve led major projects or research programs point to examples in your CV reviewers are asked if you are widely recognized, influential, community-building; if you have established, resourced, directed major efforts including training, infrastructure development, collaborations Significance of Contributions (1/2 page) highlight your contributions and their impact, tangible benefits or positive influences give examples from your CV reviewers are asked if you have significantly advanced knowledge and/or its translation into health care/systems/outcomes; and if youve engaged/trained/launched the careers of promising

individuals in research or health-related areas TIP: although the sections may have overlap in terms of what you point to, CIHR thinks that true Leaders will have so many examples of their awesomeness, they wont need to repeat any of them Productivity (1/2 page) highlight your productivity quality and quantity of outputs, with examples from CV reviewers are asked if you have demonstrated an outstanding level of research outputs based on prior work; if your previous work generated high quality research outputs TIP: if there is more than one Program Leader, their joint productivity will be considered Vision and Program Direction (1 page) articulate a compelling vision and direction for the programhighlighting the goal, overall objective(s), expected outputs/contribution(s), and significance of the proposed program. Specific details for each project in

the program are not expected, because the grants are meant to be flexible, to allow innovation and new directions. reviewers are asked if program is well-defined and wellarticulated, logical career progression for the Program Leader(s)? forward-looking, creative, and appropriately ambitious? Does the vision aim to significantly advance knowledge and/or its translation? Stage 2 application get your stage 1 reviews and an invitation to go forward (or not) the stage 2 application is 12 pages total plus page of budget justification will include: summary (1 page) quality of program 40% research concept (3 pages, 20%)coherence, significance research approach (2 pages, 20%)appropriate, flexible quality of expertise, experience, resources 60% expertise (3 pages, 20%)who are your Experts?

mentorship and training (2 pages, 20%)comprehensive plan quality of support environment (1 page, 20%)appropriate budget justification (1/2 page) Peer review of your stage 1 application This critical component remains under development. You will suggest (and exclude) potential reviewers upon registration. CIHR is shooting for 5 reviewers per application; some may be selected from existing peer review committees. Eventually, reviewers will be members of the College of Reviewers. Each reviewer will have up to 20 applications, and after scoring the criteria (and resolving discrepant scores via online discussion with dissenting reviewers), will rank the applications (no ties allowed). Each application will have a combined rank that is an average of 5 individual rankings, and the combined ranks are used to make decisions at stage 1. Right now, estimates are that the top ~350 may go forward to stage 2. Pilot of the Structured Review Forms: Adjudication Scale Stage 1 Reviewers

Stage 2 Reviewers Stage 1 Reviewers stated that they used the full range of the adjudication scale; however, Stage 2 Reviewers disagreed Although the majority of Stage 1 Reviewers stated that the adjudication scale allowed the description of meaningful differences, their comments indicated that this was not true Limitation of Stage 2 Reviewer comments is that they only saw the top 39 (of 77) applications Distribution of Ratings: Letter Scale vs. Current Number System % As Given out % Bs Given out by Reviewers by Reviewers

% Cs Given out % Ds Given out % Es Given out by Reviewers by Reviewers by Reviewers Quality of Idea 41.15% 35.16% 16.93% 4.69% 2.08% Importance of Idea 35.68%

39.84% 17.19% 5.99% 1.30% Approach 24.74% 34.90% 23.44% 13.80% 3.13%

EER 42.45% 39.84% 12.50% 4.43% 0.78% Average 36.01% 37.44% 17.52% 7.23%

1.82% 4.5 4.9 (A) 4.0 4.49 (A) 3.5 3.99 (B) 3.0 3.49 (C) 2.99 (D/E) Scientific Merit 16%

20% 35% 24% 6% Potential Impact 29% 29% 25% 12% 4%

Final Score 12% 13% 30% 34% 10% 25% new: A+B 73.5% old: A+B 55%

*Scientific Merit and Potential Impact based on Spring 2013 Knowledge Synthesis competition consensus sco Different scale (ABCDE is too close to letter grades in school)? Could also be a problem for international reviewers as the letters mean different things in different countries. Add granularity to the scale (e.g., A+, A, A-)? 5 letters is interpreted as a 20% difference between letter grades and this is not sensitive enough to capture subtle differences between applications; Stage 1 - Preliminary Reviews A little more than half of the Stage 1 Reviewers read other reviewers reviews

Reading other reviewers reviews did not often influence a reviewers assessment of the application In future surveys, this question will be re-framed to: Ask reviewers whether the ability to read other reviewers reviews was useful/helpful Differentiate the responses between reviewers who had divergent ratings/comments and those who had similar ratings/comments 28 Stage 1 Asynchronous Online Discussion 75% of reviewers did not participate in online discussions and not because there was nothing to say. Almost half were not finished with their

reviews in time. Reviewers felt their opinion was not very influential, but about half thought others could at least occasionally change their assessment. (Not clear if these were the 25% that did participate). Stage 2: Face-to-Face Meeting Most thought the face-to-face meeting was necessary All of the applications were listed in rank order on a monitor (the top half from Stage 1) and a funding cutoff line was indicated, so people had an idea of which apps needed discussion Applications were grouped into A (green zone), B (grey zone) and C

(red zone), and the discussion centered on group B apps. Overall Satisfaction with Structured Review Process Applicant satisfaction with the structured review process correlated with the state of the application (funded, moved to Stage 2, unsuccessful after Stage 1) Most Stage 1 Reviewers were satisfied with review process Most Stage 2 Reviewers were satisfied with review process 31 Registration June 23, 2014

Stage 1 Application Sept 15, 2014 Stage 1 Decision Dec 1, 2014 TOGP registration Jan 2015 TOGP application Mar 2015 Stage 2 Application Feb 5, 2015 Stage 2 Decision May 15, 2015 Stage 3 Decision July 2, 2015 If you have questions, comments or concerns, email me! [email protected]

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • We&#x27;ll Work Till Jesus Comes

    We'll Work Till Jesus Comes

    great is thy faithfulness great is thy faithfulness morning by morning new mercies i see all i have needed thy hand hath provided great is thy faithfulness lord unto to me with thanksgiving and praise medley summer and winter and...
  • SERPent: Secure Epidemiology Research Platform

    SERPent: Secure Epidemiology Research Platform

    Context MRC Centre of Epidemiology for Child Health, ICH provides a secure computing service (epiLab) 65 members of staff Wide range of projects involving analysis of 1958, 1970, 2000 UK Birth Cohorts Disease Surveillance Public health policy Record linkage Genetic...
  • Integrated Electronic Enterprise GENIUS SOFTWARE GENIUS SOFTWARE Business

    Integrated Electronic Enterprise GENIUS SOFTWARE GENIUS SOFTWARE Business

    GENIUS SOFTWARE. B. usiness. M. anagement. B. usiness. I. ntelligence @ your fingertip . Habib Abi-Rached (Chief Technology Officer: CTO & Founder) Ph.D in Computer Vision & Graphics (University of Washington) Renowned Researcher at Nasa JPL, Ford & Charles River....
  • Globalization


    As you watch the video you may wish to gather brief notes on the positives and negatives of globalization (an assessment may be in the near future… ;) and how it connects to the sustainability triangle. Globalization easily explained 5...
  • Science GCSE Revision Parent Briefing

    Science GCSE Revision Parent Briefing

    6x1hr 45min papers (2 Biology, 2 Chemistry & 2 Physics) Each paper covers specific topics. Each paper covers specific topics. Grade based on total mark from 6 papers. Grade based on marks in each subject. Highest grade taking the Foundation...
  • Audit Services

    Audit Services

    7. Bicycle and . Pedestrian Safety. 1700. Helmets distributed. 62. Bicycle/pedsafety programs. 39. Schools in Walk to School Day. 34. Schools in Bike to School Day
  • Graphical Design - University of Calgary

    Graphical Design - University of Calgary

    CRAP combines to give you cues of how to read the graphic Where does your eye go? Boxes do not create a strong structure CRAP fixes it Where does your eye go? Some contrast and weak proximity ambiguous structure interleaved...


    Visual literacy is a term used to describe being able to read texts that are not just words. Reading pictures is a type of reading that is very important. Pictures communicate meaning to a responder. They "speak" to us and...