Review Guidelines

Reviewers should review the evaluation criteria and decision process and acknowledge the review confidentiality agreement. Reviewers are encouraged to complete EDI training by University of Waterloo’s Inclusive Research Team, take the CIHR bias in peer review training and/or review NSERC guide on integrated EDI into research.

Evaluation Criteria

Applications will be evaluated by an internal review committee and scored based on the following criteria:  

  • Demonstrated relevance to GSF’s objectives and the objectives of CareNext  
  • Engagement with healthcare providers, clinicians, patients and/or family member participants  
  • Interdisciplinarity of the team– potential collaborations across disciplines and/or Faculties at Waterloo, across NSERC/CIHR/SSHRC related fields  
  • Active commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion in the composition of the research team, design of the research, and knowledge mobilization plan 
  • At least one training opportunity (i.e., undergraduate, graduate or postdoctoral involvement, community partners, external partners) 
  • Clear description of the appropriate use of the requested funds (i.e., the dollar amount requested should match the scale of activities planned, and the budget outlined should clearly explain how funds will be used), including well-justified and clearly described costs of their partner. 
  • Clear description of how a seed fund award will help facilitate future external research funding, new health care processes, or a healthcare technology that can be developed further through commercialization or other forms of innovation adoption. A plan for applying for external funding should be clearly outlined 

Decision Process

A review committee will be appointed by the Joint VP Innovation and Chief Health Innovation Officer to review applications. The reviewers may include members of the J.W. Graham Trust Committee, Waterloo researchers, and clinical and healthcare partners. Any conflicts of interest will be declared in advance (i.e., co-applicants, primary applicant from own department, etc.) and reviewers will not participate in discussions or decisions related to applications for which they have a conflict of interest. Refer to Waterloo’s Policy 69 on conflict of interest for guidance. 

Applications will be scored according to the stated evaluation criteria and the alignment with the GSF objectives and the clarity of the proposal. Applicants should be aware that this is a multidisciplinary review committee, and the emphasis is on identifying projects of strategic importance that build AI readiness – preparing the health system for future technology adoption while strengthening Waterloo’s partnerships with health care providers. While scientific excellence is important, it cannot be guaranteed that proposals will be evaluated by people with expertise in your discipline, so the onus is on the applicants to justify their scientific advances with arguments that a multidisciplinary committee would appreciate. Approved applications will be ranked from highest score to lowest score.   

Independent of the Waterloo proposal review, health care partner collaborators will be informed of all projects where they are listed as a collaborator. The partner will be asked to confirm their capacity to support the project and, in the case of multiple projects, will provide a confidential ranking of their own projects to the Joint VP Innovation and Chief Health Innovation Officer.  The review committee ranking and the partner rankings will be combined to develop a joint score to ensure the projects that are funded are strong proposals, well aligned with partner priorities. Based on this joint score, funds will be awarded as requested (to a maximum of $35,000 per application), starting with the highest-ranked application and moving down the list until all approved applications are funded or funds are depleted, whichever comes first. Primary applicants will receive notice of the decision by email.