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 supported research areas
  • Demonstrated alignment with partners’ areas of focus
  • Engagement with healthcare providers, clinicians, patients and/or family member participants in the region of Waterloo
  • Interdisciplinarity of the team– potential collaborations across disciplines and/or Faculties at Waterloo, across NSERC/CIHR/SSHRC related fields
  • Knowledge mobilization and translation throughout the research project. Applicants are encouraged to consult the following sources to review good practices in knowledge mobilization and translation such as SSHRC’s Guidelines for Effective Knowledge Mobilization and CIHR’s Guide to Knowledge Translation Planning at CIHR: Integrated and End-of-Grant Approaches
  • At least one training opportunity (i.e., undergraduate, graduate or postdoctoral involvement, community partners, clinicians, external partners)
  • Clear description of the appropriate use of the requested funds (i.e., dollar amount requested should match the scale of activities planned, and the budget outlined should clearly explain how funds will be used)
  • Clear description of how a seed fund award will help facilitate future external funding. A plan for applying for external funding should be clearly outlined

 

Decision Process

Applications will be scored according to the stated evaluation criteria and the alignment with the GSF objectives.  Applicants should be aware that this is a multidisciplinary review committee, and the focus is on identifying projects of strategic importance that can change health-care delivery in the future with technology and strengthen Waterloo relationships with our health-care partners.  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. Note that projects involving Indigenous research will also undergo an Indigenous review.

Independent of the Waterloo proposal review, health-care partners 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 Associate Vice-President, Health Initiatives.  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 $25,000 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 written notice of the decision.