Peer Review
Overview
Guidelines
Roster System
Observer Program
Peer Review Committees
Overview
The NSHRF is committed to helping improve the health of Nova Scotians by developing and supporting a vibrant and sustainable health research community throughout the province. A key component of accomplishing this mission is awarding research funds based on scientific excellence determined by a rigorous scientific review process. Since NSHRF was established, a scientific review process has been put in place, which was adopted from the national peer review process and guidelines.
Development/ Innovative,Establishment, and Scotia Support Grants are competitively peer reviewed. Competitive grant applications are evaluated by one of two panels of health research experts. Applicants must identify the category appropriate for their research on registration. Biomedical Research is reviewed by one review panel (MED) while Health Policy, Health Services and Health Outcomes Research are reviewed by a different review panel (PSO). All NSHRF peer review committee members are informed the information contained in applications is confidential and must be protected. Personal information collected by the NSHRF about applicants is used to: review applications, administer and monitor grants and awards, compile statistics and support health research in Nova Scotia.
The NSHRF is committed to research excellence and will fund only applications that achieve an overall committee rating of 3.0 or higher. The following scales are used by peer reviewers to rate competitive grant applications. Scores and reviewer comments are shared only with the Principal Investigator. Final funding decisions are made based on the peer review committees' final ratings, NSHRF Legislation and Regulations and funding availability.
Operating Grants and Scotia Support Grant Rating Scale
|
Range |
Descriptor - Operating Grants |
Descriptor - Scotia Support Grants |
Funding Status |
|
4.5 - 4.9 |
Outstanding |
Outstanding |
May be funded |
|
4.0 - 4.4 |
Excellent |
Excellent |
May be funded |
|
3.5 - 3.9 |
Very Good |
Very Good |
May be funded |
|
3.0 - 3.4 |
Solid/Significant |
Good |
May be funded |
|
2.5 - 2.9 |
Needs Revision |
Average |
Not fundable |
|
2.0 - 2.4 |
Needs Major Revision |
Below Average |
Not fundable |
|
1.0 - 1.9 |
Seriously Flawed |
Not Acceptable |
Not fundable |
|
0 |
Not acceptable |
Unable to Judge |
Not fundable |
Since we were established, a scientific review process has been put in place, which was adopted from the national peer review process and guidelines.
Guidelines
Research Program Peer Review Guidelines 2012-13 (PDF Attachment)
Roster System
We use a roster system to optimize the alignment of peer reviewer expertise with research proposal submissions. When grant applications are submitted, peer reviewers from the roster will be confirmed for participation in the peer review process; other reviewers will remain on the roster for future competitions. More information on the criteria and 2013 dates can be found here.
Observer Program
The purpose of the Peer Review Observer Program is to provide the opportunity for researchers and for those with an interest in health research to learn about the peer review process through first-hand observation of our Peer Review Committees during their deliberations.
Peer Review Committees
The Research Programs funding opportunities are reviewed by one of two peer review committees. Committee membership from past years’ competitions can be found in our annual reports available on our website.
2012-2013 Peer Review Committee: Biomedical (PDF Attachment)
2012-2013 Peer Review Committee: Health Policy, Health Services and Health Outcomes (PSO) (PDF Attachment)