NSERC Funding opportunities
Funding Prizes About Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

Funding opportunity

Discovery Grants program (individual)

Overview

Open
Value and duration

Up to five years

Application deadline

NOI application: 

Opens: May 1, 2026 8:00 am (ET)
Deadline: August 4, 2026 8:00 pm (ET)

Full application: 

Opens: August 12, 2026 8:00 am (ET)
Deadline: November 2, 2026 8:00 pm (ET)

Who can apply
  • Faculty > University
  • Researcher > University
Eligible institution
  • University
Program type
Discovery Research
Summary

The Discovery Grants program supports the development and sustainability of a diverse, high-quality research base in the natural sciences and engineering (NSE) at Canadian universities, fosters research excellence and strengthens the research training environment.

On this page
  • Description
  • Eligibility
  • Funding
  • Application
  • Review
  • Award
  • Results
  • Regulations, policies and guidelines
  • Resources
Description

The Discovery Grants (DG) program supports ongoing programs of research with long-term goals rather than a single short-term project or collection of projects. These grants recognize the creativity and innovation that are at the heart of all research advances. Discovery Grants are typically five years in duration and are considered “grants in aid” of research, as they provide long-term operating funds and can facilitate access to funding from other programs but are not meant to support the full costs of a research program.

DG recipients are not restricted to the specific activities described in their applications and may pursue new research interests, provided they are within NSERC’s mandate and adhere to the principles and directives governing the appropriate use of funds as outlined in the Tri-agency Guide on Financial Administration. This provides researchers with the flexibility to pursue promising research avenues as they emerge and the opportunity to address higher-risk (higher-reward) topics. Researchers can use their grants to participate in collaborative efforts.

Eligibility
General eligibility principles

Applicants to the DG program must meet NSERC’s Individual eligibility (for university faculty) to ensure that they can participate in this grant program as an applicant. If you are an adjunct professor, see the Access to funds by adjunct professors’ section. If your offer of a position is still pending approval at the time of application, you must take up your faculty position no later than September 1st of the year of the grant before any funds can be released. This appointment must be confirmed in writing to NSERC once you have taken up your position.

Researchers can apply for and hold only one DG at a time. Researchers who currently hold a DG cannot reapply for another until the last year of their current award.

Applicants to the DG program cannot simultaneously hold a Discovery Grant and a Discovery Horizons grant. Individuals who submit a Discovery Horizons letter of intent (LOI), whether as applicant or co-applicant, for the current competition may also submit a Discovery Grants notification of intent to apply (NOI). However, they will need to choose which program they wish to pursue before proceeding to the full application stage, as a full application may be submitted only to one program.

Subject matter eligibility and funding from other sources

Applicants to the DG program must present a program of research that is eligible under NSERC’s mandate, which is to promote and assist research in the natural sciences and engineering, other than health. The objectives of the research program must be to advance knowledge in the natural sciences or engineering. The application will be rejected if NSERC determines, at any time during the review cycle, that the subject matter is outside of its mandate. Refer to Selecting the Appropriate Federal Granting Agency, the Addendum to the guidelines for the eligibility of applications related to health, the Peer Review Manual, and the NSERC Discovery Grants Process for Decisions on Mandate Eligibility for further information on the eligibility of subject matter.

Applicants to the DG program must present a program of research that is conceptually distinct from research supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) or the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). Researchers whose program of research is inter-agency interdisciplinary in nature are invited to apply to Discovery Horizons as a mechanism to access Discovery funding.

NSERC encourages researchers to obtain funds from other sources to support the full costs of the research program presented in their DG application, as long as the funding source is not CIHR or SSHRC, and as long as the funds cover different expenses from those proposed in the DG application.

Funding Value and duration

Up to five years

Supplements
  • Discovery Grants – Northern Research Supplements program
  • Discovery Launch Supplements
Joint initiative supplements
  • DND/NSERC Discovery Grant supplement
  • NSERC Alliance – Alberta Innovates Advance Program
Eligible expenses

All expenditures are subject to the principles and directives governing the appropriate use of grant funds as outlined in the Tri-agency Guide on Financial Administration.

Application How to apply

To apply for a DG, applicants must first submit a notification of intent to apply (NOI) by the deadline date. The NOI is a mandatory step in the application process. Applicants who do not submit an NOI will not be able to submit a full application. The information contained in the NOI allows NSERC to start some aspects of the review process, including the preliminary assignment to an evaluation group, the selection of external reviewers, and the verification of the eligibility of the subject matter. Applicants must then complete and submit the application by the full application deadline date.

Applicants are required to complete and submit the NSERC version of the Canadian Common CV (CCV) at both the NOI and full application stages for this program. The CCV can be updated following the NOI submission, but updates must be made prior to the submission of the full application.

Personal information 

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

  • Transpency - 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.

Self-identification information 

You must complete the self-identification questionnaire found in the person profile of the Research Portal when applying for funding. This data provides information on the diversity of the population applying for and receiving agency funds. This information increases NSERC’s capacity to monitor its progress on increasing equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in its programs, to recognize and remove barriers, and to design new measures to achieve greater EDI in the research enterprise. If you do not want to self-identify, you have the option to choose “I prefer not to answer” for each question, but you are required to select a response for the questionnaire to be marked as complete. Self-identification information is not part of your application and will be neither accessible to, nor shared with, external reviewers and/or selection committee members. The self-identification questionnaire should be reviewed and updated, if required, every time you apply to the program.

In the full application, you will be asked to provide consent for NSERC to potentially use your self-identification information to improve equity, diversity and inclusivity in funding decisions. All self-identification information, including the consent, is not accessible to, nor shared with, external reviewers and/or committee members. The self-identification questionnaire should be reviewed and updated, if required, every time you apply to the program.

For more information, refer to the Frequently Asked Questions about the Self-identification Questionnaire.

Instructions for completing the NOI  

You must complete the NOI according to the instructions, using the Research Portal. You must also complete and link a Canadian Common CV (CCV) to the NOI. Refer to the resource video for a demonstration.

Create an application
  1. Sign in to the Research Portal
  2. Click Create application
  3. Select the funding opportunity under Stage: NOI and select Create
  4. Under Applications, open the NOI
  5. Click Edit to complete the different sections
Identification

Administering organization

Organization – Select the organization that will administer the grant.

Department – Enter the department where you hold your eligible position. If your department is not in the list, select Head office.

Application title – Provide a short and descriptive title. It may be used for publication purposes. Limit the use of acronyms (for example, DNA, NATO, etc.) and avoid company or trade names. Note: you may edit the application title at the full application stage.

Language of the application – Indicate the language in which the application will be submitted. The main body of the application must be written in either English or French, rather than a mix of both official languages. The NSERC CCV should be in the same language as the application.

Suggested evaluation group – You must select the evaluation group you consider most appropriate to review your application. Refer to the list of research topics covered by each evaluation group. NSERC reserves the right to make the final evaluation group assignment.

If you intend to apply to the Subatomic Physics (SAP) Discovery Grants program (individual) rather than the Discovery Grants program (evaluation group 1505 – Physics), you will need to first select the appropriate funding opportunity in the Research Portal and then refer to the relevant instructions on how to complete an NOI.

Indigenous research – You must indicate if your proposed research includes Indigenous research. In answering this question, applicants should review and use NSERC’s definition of Indigenous research for its programs.

Note that you will be asked to confirm whether your research includes Indigenous research at the full application stage. If it does, you will be required to submit an Indigenous Engagement and Collaboration Agreement at that stage.

For guidance on NSERC’s expectations related to Indigenous research, including its definition and guiding principles, applicants should review  the CCI guide for research involving Indigenous Peoples and communities and consult NSERC’s Indigenous research resources.

Activity details

Proposed research topics

The first research topic must be within the evaluation group you have suggested. You may select, in order of relevance, up to four additional research topics as required. Refer to the examples in the List of evaluation groups and research topics.

Keywords

Provide up to 10 keywords that best describe this proposal. It is important to separate the keywords by commas.

Summary of proposal

The summary of proposal must not exceed 6,000 characters and should:

  • state the objectives of the proposed research program
  • summarize the scientific approach
  • highlight the novelty and expected significance of the work to a field(s) in the natural sciences and engineering

Should your proposed research program change substantially from the time you submit your NOI to the time you submit your application, please contact the program officer responsible for the evaluation group you have selected.

External reviewer suggestions (mandatory)

Provide five external reviewers who:

  • are not in a conflict of interest
  • are not from your own institution
  • are from different institutions from one another
  • can provide an independent assessment of your application
  • are capable of reviewing your application in the language in which it is written

Applicants are encouraged to suggest a diverse cross-section of potential reviewers with appropriate expertise (Canadian, international, established and early–career, women and other underrepresented groups from academic and non-academic institutions).

Avoid proposing reviewers who, to the best of your knowledge, are currently affiliated with or are in receipt of funding or in-kind support from a Named Research Organization (NRO), especially if your proposed research aims to advance a Sensitive Technology Research Area (STRA). Note: In accordance with the Policy on Sensitive Technology Research and Affiliations of Concern (STRAC Policy), applicants will be asked to identify whether their research aims to advance a STRA at the full-application stage.

Applicants must not contact suggested external reviewers in advance.

Applicants should note that NSERC will not select members currently serving on an NSERC evaluation group.

Conflict of interest guidelines

A conflict of interest may be deemed to exist, or perceived as such, when external reviewers:

  • are a relative or close friend, or have a personal relationship with the applicant
  • are in a position to gain or lose financially/materially from the funding of the application
  • have had long-standing scientific or personal differences with the applicant
  • are currently affiliated with the applicant’s institutions, organizations or companies—including research hospitals and research institutes
  • are closely professionally affiliated with the applicant, as a result of having in the last six years
    • frequent and regular interactions with the applicant in the course of their duties at their department, institution, organization or company
    • been a supervisor or a trainee of the applicant
    • collaborated, published or shared funding with the applicant, or have plans to do so in the immediate future
    • been employed by the institution
  • feel for any reason unable to provide an impartial review of the application

NSERC reserves the right to resolve areas of uncertainty and to determine if a conflict exists. For more information, refer to the Conflict of interest and confidentiality policy of the federal research funding organizations.

How to enter your external reviewer suggestions in the Research Portal

  1. Family name (required)
  2. First name (required)
  3. Initials (optional)
  4. Email (required)
  5. Expertise (required)

  6. Organization (required)

    To enter the organization, click on the Edit button. Using the drop-down menu, select the country where the organization is located. Then, select the state or province (for organizations in the United States or Canada). Then, search for the organization. If the organization cannot be found, enter the organization name in free-form text. The system will accept it.

    Certain Canadian universities are listed under “The”, such as The University of British Columbia.

  7. Department (optional)
Reviewer exclusion (optional)

You may request that some researchers, organizations or large collaborations not be involved in the review of your application. While NSERC cannot be bound by this information, the agency will take it into consideration when selecting reviewers. NSERC may also exclude reviewers because of conflicts of interest, as described in the Conflict of interest and confidentiality policy of the federal research funding organizations.

Information concerning exclusions may be accessible to those individuals named in this section under the Privacy Act.

Note that the exclusion type Collaboration refers to large research groups that work on specific projects.

Uploading your NSERC CCV

To upload your CCV successfully, the first name and family name used to create your CCV site account must match the names used to create your Research Portal account. The email address used to create your Research Portal account must also match at least one of the emails listed in your CCV account.

  • In the Application Overview page, click Attach.
  • Enter your CCV confirmation number (see the NSERC CCV instructions for professors for details on how to obtain your confirmation number).
  • Click Upload.
  • Click Back to Application Overview.
  • Preview your CCV in the Research Portal to make sure it was uploaded correctly and includes all the records you want to submit for peer review. Your CCV must be in the same language as your NOI. You may update your CCV at the full application stage.

While the NSERC Canadian Common CV website is bilingual, you can only save your NSERC CCV in one official language at a time. To save a French version, you must sign in to the platform in French, as the saved language corresponds to the platform’s language setting.

Submitting the NOI

Click on the Submit button at the bottom of the Application Overview page. A pop-up message will appear. You will be required to extract and review your NOI to ensure that it is complete. The CCV will not appear in the extracted application. Save a copy of your NOI for your records. Once you have checked the confirmation box, click Submit in the pop-up message.

To complete submitting your NOI, you must read and accept the terms and conditions by clicking the I Accept button. You will see a confirmation message on the screen and receive a confirmation email that your NOI was received and that the status of your submission is Received by Agency.

You can verify the status of your submission on the home page. The status will be Received by Agency.

Instructions for completing the full application (will be updated in August)

Research Portal

Information on deadlines

Your application must be received at your institution’s research grants office by its internal deadline date; contact your research grants office for that deadline.

Unless specified otherwise, your application must be received at NSERC by 8:00 pm (ET) on the deadline date. If it is not received by NSERC by the deadline, it will be rejected.

In cases of systems interruptions, refer to the Service standards for NSERC and SSHRC’s online application systems policy on sustained interruptions.

Once an application has been submitted to NSERC, it cannot be updated or modified, either before or after the deadline date.

Application deadline

NOI application: 

Opens: May 1, 2026 8:00 am (ET)
Deadline: August 4, 2026 8:00 pm (ET)

Full application: 

Opens: August 12, 2026 8:00 am (ET)
Deadline: November 2, 2026 8:00 pm (ET)

Review

Applications are submitted to the DG program and not to a particular evaluation group (EG). Applications are reviewed by EGs. Each EG comprises Canadian and international peers with diversified expertise in the areas of research covered by the EG. There may also be input on applications from external reviewers. NSERC assigns applications to EGs on the basis of the research topics, the objectives of the proposed research program and input from both applicants and EGs. At the NOI stage, applicants are asked to suggest which EG they believe to be the most appropriate to review their application. The final decision of EG assignment is made by NSERC.

For interdisciplinary research within the NSE, appropriate review of the application will be ensured by identifying appropriate EG members and external reviewers to review the application. Please see the Guidelines for the Preparation and Review of Applications in Interdisciplinary Research for more information.

Selection criteria

Applications are rated according to the following selection criteria. The onus is on applicants to address these explicitly in their application. As part of an ongoing commitment to ensure that a wide range of contributions are considered and valued in the merit review, the Guidelines on the assessment of contributions to research, training and mentoring will support the evaluation of NSERC applications.

  • Scientific or engineering excellence of the researcher
    • knowledge, expertise and experience
    • quality of contributions to, and impact on, the proposed and other areas of research in the natural sciences and engineering
    • importance of contributions to, and use by, other researchers and end-users
  • Merit of the proposal
    • originality and innovation: extent to which the proposal suggests and explores novel or potentially transformative concepts and lines of inquiry
    • significance and expected contributions to research; potential for policy and/or technology-related impact
    • clarity and scope of objectives (research program with long-term goals rather than a single short-term project or collection of projects)
    • clarity and appropriateness of methodology
    • feasibility
    • extent to which the scope of the proposal addresses all relevant issues, including the need for varied expertise within or across disciplines
    • consideration of equity, diversity and inclusion in the research process where relevant
    • consideration of interdisciplinary methods or practices in research, if applicable
    • appropriateness of, and justification for, the budget
    • demonstration that the DG proposal is conceptually distinct from research support held or applied for through CIHR and/or SSHRC
  • Contribution to the training of highly qualified personnel (HQP)
    • quality and impact of past training of HQP (e.g., postdoctoral researchers, graduate and undergraduate students, technicians), including
      • training environment provided for HQP
      • HQP awards and research contributions
      • outcomes and skills gained by HQP
    • quality, suitability and clarity of the planned training of HQP, including
      • overall training philosophy
      • research training plan for individual HQP
    • consideration of equity, diversity and inclusion in past and planned training of HQP

The overall merit assessment of each application is based on the combination of ratings by the EG for each selection criterion. The final rating assigned and the applicant category will determine the grant level.

For more information on how applications are assessed, refer to the Peer Review Manual.

Expected assessment time

Results are shared annually in April.

Review committees
Award Notification of results

Expected mid-April

Results

Refer to the Discovery Grants Information Centre for more information.

Funding decisions
  • View funding decisions
Regulations, policies and guidelines

NSERC supports excellent, innovative, and impactful research that advances knowledge and understanding and responds to local, national and global challenges. NSERC recognizes that equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) principles are foundational to research quality and impact. It is essential to recognize and remove systemic barriers that limit the full participation of all individuals and communities, and to integrate EDI considerations in all aspects of research. These principles are integral to the Tri-agency statement on EDI and the Tri-agency EDI Action Plan. For more information, consult the NSERC EDI webpage.

To ensure the Canadian research ecosystem is as open as possible and as secure as necessary, the Government of Canada has provided clear information on research security considerations for the development, evaluation and funding of grant applications.

For more information on the granting agencies’ implementation of harmonized research security measures, as well as further guidance and resources on how to safeguard your research, please refer to the Tri-agency guidance on research security.

The STRAC Policy addresses risks related to research that advances sensitive technology research areas performed with research organizations and institutions that pose the highest risk to Canada’s national security. The STRAC Policy applies to this funding opportunity.

Applicants must identify whether their proposed research aims to advance a sensitive technology research area. If so, the submission of attestation forms will be required from researchers with named roles in the grant application (see the list of named roles specific to this funding opportunity) to certify that they are not currently affiliated with, nor are in receipt of funding or in-kind support from, a named research organization.

The Tri-agency guidance on the STRAC Policy provides more information on applicable procedures and requirements, including the responsibilities of researchers and the responsibilities of institutions.
Resources
  • Discovery Grants – applicant categories
  • Discovery Grants – Discovery Launch supplements
  • Discovery Grants information centre
  • Discovery Grants merit indicators
  • Guidance on the use of Artificial Intelligence in the development and review of research grant proposals
  • Instructions to external reviewers
  • List of Evaluation Groups and Research Topics
  • Memo to potential applicants (2027 DG competition)
  • NSERC Discovery Grants process for decisions on mandate eligibility
  • Peer Review Manual
  • Primary caregivers who are eligible for but decline taking extended leave (maternity, parental or adoption)
  • Q&A Sessions and Pre-recorded how-to-apply videos
  • Relationship Between NSERC Proposals and Other Sources of Funds
  • Selecting the Appropriate Federal Granting Agency
Frequently asked questions

The answers to the FAQ are based on information in section 4.4.3 of the Peer review manual.

For more information contact the program staff at resgrant@nserc-crsng.gc.ca.

Instructions on how to complete an application and the Peer review manual state the following:

  • The assessment of the HQP training plan is composed of two components: training philosophy and research training plan.
  • The assessment of the past contributions to HQP training is composed of three components: training environment, HQP awards and research contributions, and outcomes and skills gained by HQP.

These components are designed to provide insight into what constitutes valuable HQP training, both from the standpoint of training the next generation of natural sciences and engineering (NSE) researchers, and providing diverse HQP with desirable skillsets, which lead to impactful careers.

No, both the HQP training plan and the Past contributions to HQP training are free-form sections in the application. This allows you the flexibility to choose the best method to present the evidence that supports each subsection (component). It should be noted that the Past contributions to HQP training section is an ideal place in the application to expand on and complement the information contained in the CCV regarding past and current HQP to demonstrate the quality and impact of your training.

Assessment of the HQP training plan will focus on two components: the research training plan and the training philosophy. Refer to questions 4 and 5 for details on what to include. If you submit a plan without relevant details, the overall rating of the HQP criterion will reflect the lack of specificity. It is also important to remember that the assessment of contributions to the training of HQP is based on both the past contributions to HQP training and the future plan for training HQP. If you submit a poor training plan, but your past training is good (or vice versa), this will be reflected in the final HQP rating.

A good research training plan should provide details on the activities or projects in which research personnel will be involved and how these relate to achieving the objectives of the proposed research program. Sufficient detail should be provided to demonstrate that the activities are appropriate to the level of research personnel involved (e.g., undergraduate, Masters, PhD, etc.).

The training philosophy will contribute to the assessment of the quality, suitability, and clarity of your HQP training plan (in the NSE). You can include details such as your approach to and interaction with your HQP, your research mentorship methods, as well as the opportunities provided to enhance the HQP training environment. You can also describe the intellectual involvement of HQP in your research program, the skills and knowledge that HQP will acquire and the expected impact on HQP. You are expected to describe how you will promote participation of a diverse group of HQP, taking into account equity and inclusion in recruitment practices and mentorship approaches, as well as initiatives aimed at ensuring an inclusive research and training environment and trainee growth.

Starting in the 2020 Discovery Grants competition the training philosophy must include, as part of the planned approach for recruitment and training, a qualitative description of your EDI challenges or barriers and specific actions you will implement in order to promote the participation of a diverse group of HQP, including those from under-represented groups. Please read the full application instructions and the Peer review manual for more details.

Assessment of the past training of HQP will focus on the training environment, HQP awards and research contributions, and outcomes and skills gained by HQP.

Training environment

Participation and involvement of HQP in research training and development opportunities such as science outreach activities, interdisciplinary research, promoting EDI in the NSE, collaborations and/or interactions with the private and public sectors can be evidence of an enhanced training environment. The type and nature of the research training and development opportunities will depend on the discipline and level of HQP, and you must be able to demonstrate that the training is appropriate and valuable to both the HQP and your research program.

Discussion of challenges or barriers encountered in ensuring an inclusive research and training environment, and the specific actions implemented to support equity, diversity and inclusion in the research and training environment can also be evidence of impact in past training of HQP.

Note: Trainee demographic data is not requested, nor required to assess impacts of consideration of equity, diversity and inclusion in the past research and training environment.

HQP awards and research contributions

Evidence that HQP have collaborated in research contributions (conferences, publications, patents, technical reports, etc.) can be considered as an indicator of their intellectual involvement and success. Evidence of HQP collaboration can take the form of co-authorship, although this varies depending on the norms of the discipline.

Outcomes and skills gained

The progression of HQP into further studies or careers that have impact can be evidence of how the quality of training contributed to the success of HQP. Careers can be in the private sector, public sector, or academia. The impact can be either in an NSE or a non-NSE domain, but it must be clearly demonstrated how the skills gained by HQP in your research training environment are being used in their careers or further studies.

HQP trained entirely outside of the six-year window will not be considered in the evaluation of past contributions to HQP training. However, applicants with eligible leaves of absence may include supplemental contributions from their most recent active research period prior to the last six years for a period equivalent to the duration of the leave. For more information, refer to the application instructions.

Members look at the quality and impact of the contributions to HQP training and refrain from trying to quantify or assign weightings to different HQP groups. Contributions to high quality research training at all levels are valued, including undergraduate students involved in research, graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, technicians, and research associates.

Past HQP training can be in the NSE or non-NSE domains (e.g., health, social sciences), but must be in a research training environment that generates new knowledge or insights. However, your proposed training plan for HQP must be within the NSE domain.

When evaluating your past contributions to the (research) training of HQP, members do not consider how the HQP were funded, whether from an NSERC Discovery Grant, a CIHR or SSHRC grant, or any other type of funding.

All applicants will be assessed in terms of the quality and impact of their past contributions to the training of HQP and their training plan. Contributions to training will not be assessed solely in terms of the number and level of individuals supervised. Members will consider how the training contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the particular field of research and in the NSE. It is important to remember, especially regarding the training of undergraduate students, that the progression of HQP into further studies or careers that use the skills gained during the applicant’s research training environment are considered as evidence of the quality of their training. If you are a co-supervisor, the level, content, and your contribution to the training must be clearly described. In all cases, the onus is on the applicant to describe their situation in sufficient detail to allow an assessment to be made.

All applicants are assessed in terms of the quality and impact of their past contributions to HQP training and future training plan. The amount of funding received in the past is not a factor that is considered in the evaluation. An applicant who has received funding from different sources and who has supported many HQP does not automatically receive a higher rating. Members evaluate the quality of the training environment, HQP awards and research contributions, outcomes and skills gained, as well as the proposed training plan and philosophy rather than the number of HQP that an applicant has or is planning to train. For example, members assess the appropriateness and clarity of the training plan through aspects such as whether the HQP are well integrated into the proposed plan, whether the proposed work for specific HQP is appropriate for their level, and if the training plan is appropriate for the size of the group proposed. In the case of a large research group, the onus is on the applicant to explain the management of, and their involvement with, the group.

Within your description of past contributions to HQP training, mentorship is not considered as evidence of official HQP supervision, even if the applicant is an Early Career Researcher. It can, however, be used to demonstrate the feasibility of the applicant’s training plan. Your proposed mentorship approach in a DG-funded research training environment will be assessed as part of the training philosophy component of the HQP criterion.

Your involvement in science outreach activities is recognized within the Excellence of the researcher criterion. Enhancement of the training environment through involvement of your HQP in science outreach activities, professional development workshops, interdisciplinary research and/or interaction with the private and public sectors (e.g., industry, government agencies, etc.) is recognized within the Contributions to the training of HQP criterion as evidence of quality and impact of research training. Involvement of trainees in organizing and engaging in outreach activities to under-represented groups is an additional way to demonstrate the quality and impact of research training.

All of your HQP are to be identified by an asterisk; this is extremely important for the assessment of HQP research contributions.

Presentations given by HQP can be included as evidence of the quality and impact of HQP training. These can be summarized within the Past contributions to HQP training section of the application and are not to be included within your CCV.

Do not include the role of academic advisor in your NSERC CCV. Typically, academic advisor is not considered an official supervisor role in the evaluation of the contributions to HQP. If you wish to include HQP that are not under your direct and formal supervision, you can describe them in the Past contributions to HQP training section. Clearly define your role in their training. Refer to question 13 for information on how mentorship versus official supervision will be evaluated.

If you are not able to obtain consent, you are to provide information regarding HQP without providing names. Even though this information might be more generic, it should be sufficient to enable members to assess your HQP criterion. Every effort should be made to include names where possible.

General teaching responsibilities are not taken into consideration in the evaluation of the HQP criterion, as this criterion measures research training, which is distinct from teaching.

All applicants are evaluated using the same criteria. The only difference in the assessment of early career researchers (ECRs) and established researchers (ER) is the role of the past contributions to the training of HQP in determining the final rating. ECRs should not be rated as “Insufficient” solely due to the lack of past training of HQP; the review should focus on the plan for future training. To compensate for the fact that ECRs have little to no past training of HQP and generally receive a lower HQP rating than most ERs, ECRs are usually funded to a lower bin level than ERs and normally receive a rating of “Moderate”.

It is normal and expected that most early career researcher applicants will receive a rating of “Moderate” on the HQP criterion due to a lack of past contributions to the training HQP. However, a higher or lower rating can be given if warranted by your past contribution to the training of HQP and future training plan. For example, a higher rating can be given if your past training of HQP and training plan compares favourably with other applicants, including established researchers.

If you have held an independent academic position for five years or less, you will be evaluated as an early career researcher (please see Questions 20 & 21). Applicants are reminded that supervision or co-supervision of HQP within an academic setting is not the only way to demonstrate past training of HQP. When completing an application, it is important to include all forms of research training of HQP, including interns, junior staff or visiting students who were under your supervision or co- supervision and who were involved in your research program. You should clearly explain your role in the research training as well as your level of involvement.

Describing the existing EDI challenges that are part of the context of your program of research and your planned approach to promoting participation from diverse groups of potential trainees will demonstrate the incorporation of EDI in your Training philosophy. “Diversity encompasses acceptance and respect of individual identities, which include, but are not limited to, the dimensions of race, language, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, sex, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, disability, neurodivergence, physical appearance, religious beliefs, political beliefs or other ideologies, ancestry, culture, geographic background […]”. For more information, please consult NSERC's guide on integrating equity, diversity and inclusion considerations in research.
Contact

For program-related information, email resgrant@nserc-crsng.gc.ca.

For technical matters related to the Research Portal, contact the online services helpdesk by email at webapp@nserc-crsng.gc.ca, by phone at 1-855-275-2861, or complete an online services support request.