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.    

Peer review in the academic arena is the evaluation of a scholar or a scholarly work by peers - typically qualified members of the scholar's discipline or profession with similar or greater competence, expertise, or rank. It is attended to be a mechanism of a self-regulation within a field or an institution in order to assure that standards of quality are met, demonstrate credibility, and encourage improvement. Peer review may be applied to a product of scholarship (e.g., manuscript, book, creative work, or performance), other scholarly activities such as grant proposals, conference abstracts, and ethics review submissions, and scholars and their bodies of work (e.g., for awards, hiring, annual review, and promotion and tenure). Peer review may also apply to programs and organizations (e.g., accreditation).[1]

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

  

Back to top

Guidelines

Research Program Peer Review Guidelines 2014-15 (PDF Attachment)

Back to top

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 processes can be found here.

Back to top

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.

Back to top

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

2013-2014 Peer Review Committee: Biomedical (PDF Attachment)
2013-2014 Peer Review Committee: Health Policy, Health Services and Health Outcomes (PSO) (PDF Attachment)

Back to Top

 


[1] Gelmon, S.B, Jordan, C.M, & Selfer, S.D. (2013). Rethinking Peer Review: Expanding the Boundaries for Community-Engaged Scholarship. International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, 1(1), 1-10.