Canadian Institutes of Health
Research
New Open Suite of Programs and
Peer Review Enhancements
University of Manitoba
February 14, 2012
Objectives of the Discussion
2
•
To provide a high-level overview of the proposed design for the new Open
Suite of Programs and Peer Review Enhancements.
•
To obtain feedback on the proposed design from an Institutional
perspective.
•
To begin the discussion on Institutional role in the new Open Suite of
Programs and future transition considerations.
The Rationale
• CIHR has a broad mandate to support the creation and translation of health
research across all domains.
•
The current Open Suite of Programs presents both real and perceived
barriers to certain types of research and researchers, and is not well
positioned to capture innovative and ground-breaking research.
CIHR intends to re-design the Open Suite of Programs to better:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Capture excellence across all research domains;
Capture innovative/breakthrough research;
Contribute to improved sustainability of the long-term research enterprise; and
Integrate new talent.
• This will allow CIHR to sustainably contribute to the health research
enterprise, and maintain Canada’s competitiveness in today’s knowledgebased economy.
3
The Rationale
•
4
The Canadian health research community and other stakeholders have also told us
that they are looking for change. A number of challenges have been identified:
The Proposed Design
•
5
New Open Suite of Programs will be structured into two separate, complimentary
funding schemes:
•
The Foundation/Programmatic Research Scheme is about funding people.
The assessment criteria in this scheme would be based on the caliber of the
applicants and their vision for their program of research. We want provide
longer-term support with the freedom to create, change, and re-direct research
efforts, as required.
•
The Project Scheme is about funding ideas. The assessment criteria in this
scheme would be based on the quality and originality of the idea. We want to
ensure that there are opportunities for all types of researchers to bring forward
proposals from all areas of health research.
•
Both schemes would involve a multi-phased competition process that promotes
gated submissions with specific application criteria at each stage.
•
The new Open Suite of Programs would be supported by a College of Reviewers –
a bank of trained specialists, generalists and lay reviewers who would be matched to
specific applications.
The Proposed Design
•
•
CIHR is in the process of modeling different scenarios
Our principle is to maintain the number of unique NPIs funded by Open programs
This funding profile illustrates that the majority of grantees held less than $150K of in-year funding
in 2010-11. The average value of an individual grant is approximately $123K per year.
6
6
The Proposed Design
An example of the proposed multi-phased competition process for the Project Scheme
An illustrative scenario….
Approx. 5000
apps are received
7
They are reviewed by
some 500-800 reviewers
Approx. 2500 apps
progress to stage 2
Those are reviewed by
approx. 500-800
reviewers
Approx. 955 project
grants are awarded
Institutional Considerations
Design Element: Foundation/Programmatic Research Scheme –
Institutional Support
•
Successful programs of research will require more support than what CIHR can
provide through a grant.
•
The Foundation/Programmatic Research will require grant applicants to secure
“significant support” from Institutions as part of their application package. Current
thinking suggests this may include commitments for:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Time Release (i.e., protected time for research);
Infrastructure;
Resources;
Knowledge Translation support (e.g., technology transfer);
Training;
Salary;
Career Development;
Other?
How can CIHR and research institutions work together to maximize the overall impact
researchers have through their programs of research?
Institutional Considerations
Design Element: Multi-Phase Competition Process
• Multi-phase competition involves using a gated submission process with
specific application criteria at each stage.
• Stage 1 applications will be short, and would require less effort to process
than the current number of longer, larger single applications.
• Stage 1 of the multi-phased competition process will triage the number of
applicants who move on to submit a full application.
• CIHR anticipates that Institutions will have fewer “full” applications to
process.
What will be the impact of using a gated submission process on your internal
processes?
Institutional Considerations
Design Element: College of Reviewers
Institutions are encouraged to work with CIHR to ensure appropriate peer
reviewer recognition, as part of the effort to secure a sustainable foundation of
available expertise for peer review.
Previous conversations with Institutions suggested the following incentives are
possible options to further incentivize peer review:
• Performance management processes
• Tenure and promotion
• Protected time
What other types of meaningful incentives would institutions be willing to provide to
peer reviewers?
Transitioning to the New Schemes
•
Current thinking suggests a gradual phase-in strategy will be used to
implement the new design in small, progressive steps.
•
CIHR is considering piloting some elements of the new Open Suite of
Programs design.
Current considerations for transition include:
11
•
Education, training and support for applicants and reviewers.
•
Developing a thorough understanding of system-wide impacts of changes to
CIHR’s programming.
•
Working with institutions and partners to ensure smooth transition.
•
Development of a monitoring and evaluation system to ensure continuous
quality improvement of the new system.
Transitioning to the New Schemes
•
The target is to announce some decisions about the design of the new
Open Suite of Programs in June 2012.
•
Applicants and reviewers would be provided with at least one year to allow
time to prepare.
•
The first funded researchers under a new set of funding schemes
announced in 2014-15.
Are there any other transition considerations CIHR should be aware of?
12
Feedback
The Design Discussion Document was posted to the CIHR website on February 9,
2012.
Feedback on CIHR’s proposed changes can be submitted through:
•
On-line discussion forum - February to March 2012
•
Direct e-mail address - February to March 2012
•
Feedback form - February to March 2012
•
Town Halls/Institution Discussion Forums - February to April 2012
We invite you to join us in an on-going, active and production discussion about the
proposed new Open Suite of Programs and peer review enhancements over the coming
weeks.
13