By transmitting your final evaluation to NSERC, you confirm that you have read these instructions and consent to these uses and disclosures.

In addition, you may refer to:

• Program description for the Collaborative Research and Training Experience (CREATE) program
• Guidelines on the assessment of contributions to research, training and mentoring
• Guidelines for the preparation and review of applications in interdisciplinary research
• NSERC guide on integrating equity, diversity and inclusion considerations in research
• Guidance on the use of Artificial Intelligence in the development and review of research grant proposals

External reviewers must make every effort to review every application without bias, whether this bias is based on a school of thought, fundamental versus applied research, certain sub-disciplines, areas of research or approaches, size or reputation of an institution, age, personal factors or the gender of the (co-)applicants. NSERC cautions external reviewers against any judgment of an application based on such factors, and it asks them to constantly guard against the possibility of hidden bias influencing the review process. External reviewers are encouraged to complete the following training module:

• Bias in peer review

NSERC strongly encourages the use of inclusive language (for example, “the applicant” or “they” instead of “he/she”). The review should be free from words or sentences that are prejudiced, stereotyped or discriminatory against a particular people, groups or their institutions. The use of inclusive language has been shown to decrease unconscious bias during the evaluation process. For more information, refer to the Canada Research Chairs guidelines on limiting unconscious bias.

NSERC is committed to promoting equity, diversity and inclusion to ensure equitable access across its programs. For more information, please refer to the Tri-agency Statement on Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI).

If you are in a conflict of interest or, for any other reason, unable to act as an external reviewer, please contact us directly at CREATE@nserc-crsng.gc.ca as soon as possible.

Refer to the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy of the Federal Research Funding Organizations for more information. In addition, external reviewers must sign the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement for Review Committee Members, External Reviewers, and Observers before they access the application material.

As part of NSERC’s commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion, as described in the Tri-agency EDI Action Plan, you will also be asked to complete a self-identification questionnaire. The questionnaire is mandatory; however, you will be given the option to select “I prefer not to answer” for each category.

Allegations of policy breaches, as described in the Tri-agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research, must be treated separately from the peer review process. Should your review reveal concerns of possible policy breaches, report any allegation separately to the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research. Your evaluation should only address the application you evaluated according to the selection criteria and make no mention of the breach concerns.

The information you provide in the application is collected under the authority of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Act. The collection, use, disclosure, retention, and disposal of your personal information are outlined in the following policy statements:

• Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act
• Data retention information
• Privacy notice

For more information, refer to the Personal Information Banks described in NSERC’s Info Source.

Please refer to the Guidance on the use of Artificial Intelligence in the development and review of research grant proposals and associated FAQs pages for more information. Reviewers should be aware that uploading application information into any online tool could result in breaches of privacy and in loss of custody of intellectual property. The use of publicly available online tools for evaluating grant applications is strictly prohibited.

Please assess the proposal using the evaluation criteria described below. For each criterion, please provide your comments in the text box located on the Referee report/Application for a grant (Form 140). As subject matter experts, your comments should provide the multi-disciplinary selection committee context on the application’s proposal with reference to current practice in your field. You are not required to respond to every bullet point under each evaluation criterion, and you may select those you feel are most pertinent for the committee.

1. Merit of the proposed training program (50%)
Please limit your response for this criterion to 1000 words.

• Are the following elements of the proposed program well described? Are the proposed program elements inadequate, adequate, or exceed expectations?
  • Clarity of the short- and longer-term research and training program elements and how they relate to current developments.
  • As appropriate to the proposal’s subject matter, the degree to which the training program, while focused in the natural sciences and engineering (NSE), also fosters research and training at the interface between the NSE and health or the social sciences and humanities.
  • Extent to which the program uses novel pedagogic approaches, program offerings or mentorship that go above and beyond the traditional graduate school experience or programs currently in place to:
    • develop technical skills
    • develop professional skills
    • provide enriching mobility experiences, including academic exchanges, internships, field work etc., either in Canada or abroad
  • Description of the potential employers and a qualitative assessment of the job prospects for trainees; extent to which the research training program will facilitate the transition of the trainees to the Canadian workforce and promote interaction with non-academic sectors, such as private companies, industry associations, nonprofit organizations, government departments, etc.

2. Excellence of the team of researchers (25%)
Please limit your response for this criterion to 500 words.

• Are the following elements of the team well described? Are the team members and their roles inadequate, adequate, or exceed expectations?
  • Quality and impact of the team members’ past contributions to their respective research areas.
  • How the expertise of group members is complementary, and how the group will work collaboratively to deliver on the research and training goals proposed; applicants should explain their respective roles and responsibilities within the training program and should differentiate between key mentors and other team members.
  • Consideration of EDI in the rationale of the team composition and in the designated roles within the team.
  • Quality and extent of past contributions to the training and mentoring of highly qualified personnel (HQP), as well as EDI considerations in trainee recruitment and the research and training environment.

3. Program management and long-term sustainability (25%)
Please limit your response for this criterion to 500 words.

• Are the program management and long-term sustainability plans well described? Are the following elements of the plan inadequate, adequate, or exceed expectations?
  • Recruitment and training activities focused on graduate-level trainees.
  • Measures that will be implemented to promote participation from a diverse group of trainees; consideration of EDI in recruitment, mentorship, and training activities.
  • Evidence of the university’s commitment to facilitate the achievement of the program’s objectives to ensure the longevity of program elements beyond the period of the grant.
  • Appropriateness of the proposed management structure, including the composition, the role and the responsibilities of the Program Committee, and considerations of EDI in the rationale of the proposed management structure.
  • Reliability of project management plans to implement the training program and evaluate the program’s performance against stated objectives.

Recommendation

Based on the balance of its strengths and weaknesses, would you recommend funding this proposal?