This guide is for members of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) scholarships and postdoctoral awards review committees that are responsible for the evaluation of applications to the Canada Graduate Research Scholarship – Doctoral and Canada Postdoctoral Research Award programs. The guide describes the activities carried out by members and chairs of these review committees, as well as the policies, guidelines and deliverables for each of these activities.

Applicants who refer to this document should note that the content is intended to guide members and outline principles rather than provide them with a set of rules.

For more information regarding doctoral and postdoctoral programs, policies and guidelines, contact NSERC by sending an email to nsercscholarships-boursescrsng@nserc-crsng.gc.ca.

This guide is updated annually.

To ensure effective program delivery, NSERC may periodically pilot modifications to the review process that may not be reflected in this guide. 

The Canada Graduate Research Scholarship – Doctoral (CGRS D) program recognizes and supports the next generation of outstanding innovators, knowledge workers, creative thinkers and researchers. This support allows scholars to concentrate on their doctoral studies more fully, to seek out the best research mentors in their chosen fields and to contribute to the Canadian research ecosystem during and beyond the tenure of their awards.

These awards are valued at $40,000 per year for a duration of 36 months.

The Canada Postdoctoral Research Award (CPRA) program recognizes and supports the next generation of outstanding innovators, knowledge workers, creative thinkers and researchers at a pivotal time in their careers. This support allows postdoctoral researchers to add to their experience by engaging in research either in Canada or outside of Canada and facilitates their transition to the next phase of their career.

These awards are valued at $70,000 per year for a duration of 24 months.

Expert scientists and engineers from academia, industry and government form the membership of discipline-based review committees. Members review and score applications assigned to them according to policies and guidelines established by NSERC. For a complete list of members, refer to the NSERC Review committees web page.

NSERC regularly solicits nominations for members of its review committees from academic and industrial research institutions and government organizations within Canada and abroad. Experts are recruited based on knowledge and experience, language, equity and inclusivity, research sector, geographic region and suitability. For more information about the recruitment of members, consult the Guidelines Governing Membership of NSERC’s Peer Review Committees.

Membership terms are usually limited to three years and approximately one-third of the membership changes each year. The rotation of members allows for a broader representation of institutions, complementary expertise and vitality of the review committees. The presence of experienced members on the review committees promotes consistency and continuity in the review process and assists with the orientation of new members.

Members participate in the review of applications and provide recommendations based on the program selection criteria. Specific responsibilities include:

• completing the Bias in Peer Review training module and taking steps to help mitigate unconscious biases during the review process
• reading the Instructions for completing an application
• reading the Tri-agency Statement on Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI)
• reading Equity, diversity and inclusion considerations at each stage of the research process
• reading the Guidelines on the assessment of contributions to research, training and mentoring
• watching the video Balanced, broad and responsible: A practical guide for research evaluators
• completing the self-identification questionnaire
• participating in orientation meetings and discussions
• submitting comfort ratings and identifying conflicts of interest for all applications received
• reading, scoring and providing in-depth evaluations for a subset of applications within the assigned timeframe
• confirming whether an application fits within one or more priority research areas (if required), this identification does not involve scoring and has no impact on evaluation results
• reading, participating in deliberations for and scoring all applications discussed during the review meeting for postdoctoral applications
• providing feedback to NSERC and the review committee chair on policy and procedural items in preparation for the chairs’ meeting
• recommending potential new members

The review committee chairs help to ensure the orderly and complete review of applications and the transmission of recommendations to NSERC. They lead the review committee’s efforts to maintain the highest quality of evaluation, monitor consistency and equity of approach and help to ensure that all important aspects of applications are considered during the review process. Chairs play an important oversight role, act as liaisons, represent their respective review committees during the chairs’ meeting and provide policy advice and guidance on the delivery of the programs. Chairs also share the roles and responsibilities of members.

The group chair is appointed by NSERC to act as a liaison between the review committees listed on the Review committees web page and the Committee on Discovery Research (CDR) of which the group chair is a member. CDR is responsible for making policy recommendations to Council for various NSERC programs, including those related to the training of highly qualified personnel. In this capacity, the group chair acts in the best interest of all review committees. The group chair is not considered a member of any review committee and does not evaluate, discuss or score applications.

NSERC staff are not members of any review committee and do not evaluate, discuss or score applications. Staff oversee membership, provide advice on NSERC policies, guidelines and procedures, determine application eligibility, assign applications to members and help ensure consistency and equity of approach in the review of all applications assigned to a review committee.

Throughout their term, members are required to attend virtual orientation sessions and review meetings. Depending on the review committee and discipline, the frequency, format and length of these meetings may vary.

At the start of the review process, each review committee holds an orientation session for all its members. This session provides an overview of the review process and of NSERC’s policies and guidelines. It also provides an opportunity for new members to ask questions and for returning members to share best practices and provide advice to new members.

After the initial scoring of postdoctoral applications, a virtual review meeting may be held, during which a subset of applications is discussed and scored by all members who do not have a conflict of interest. Members must familiarize themselves with all applications being discussed. The members who initially scored the application must be prepared to present the application to the review committee for discussion and scoring at the review meeting.

Members may provide feedback on the review process during a policy discussion at the end of the meeting or by email.

Note: There are no review meetings associated with the review process for doctoral applications.

After the annual review process, review committee chairs and the group chair are invited to participate in a virtual meeting with NSERC staff to discuss policy-related items.

Participation of experts in the review of applications is crucial to the success of the doctoral and postdoctoral programs; serving in this capacity involves a significant time commitment. Contributing as a member demands periods of activity that may interfere with normal responsibilities. It is recommended that an appropriate amount of time is set aside for the thorough review of applications.

Doctoral applications are submitted to NSERC either through a Canadian institution or directly by the applicant. Each eligible Canadian institution is assigned a quota of applications for the CGRS D program that can be forwarded to NSERC.

Postdoctoral applications are submitted directly to NSERC by the applicant.

Applications are evaluated by one of the review committees listed on the Review committees web page. Each application is assigned to a review committee based on the research subject code chosen by the applicant. During eligibility processing, NSERC may assign an application to a different review committee if they deem the subject matter more appropriate for another review committee. Applicants are notified if their application is proposed for transfer and given a 48-hour window to respond with questions or to decline the transfer. If they decline the transfer, the application file will remain in its originally assigned review committee.

During application review, members should notify NSERC staff if they are of the opinion that an application should be evaluated by a different review committee.

To assist in the assignment of applications, members are asked to provide individual expertise comfort levels (high, medium, low, zero) and identify conflicts of interest for applications received by their review committee. NSERC staff responsible for each review committee use this information to assign applications to members, balancing workload while taking into account potential conflicts of interest, language considerations and expertise comfort levels. Members are responsible for reviewing a subset of the applications submitted to NSERC and each application is assigned to up to three members for review. Given the broad range of topics covered by each review committee, members may be asked to review applications outside their primary area of expertise. Members should advise NSERC of any potential issues with the assignment of applications as soon as possible.

Members must adhere to the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement for Review Committee Members, External Reviewers and Observers and are responsible for declaring any conflicts of interest prior to the review of applications. In the context of the CGRS D and CPRA programs, NSERC adheres to the following guidelines:

• If an applicant is, has been or will be under the direct supervision of a member or if there is a personal link, the member must withdraw from the discussion and scoring. The member may not act as a reviewer for such applications.
• If an applicant is or will be in the same department as the member, the member must withdraw from the discussion and the scoring. The member may not act as a reviewer for such applications.
• If an applicant is or will be at the same institution as the member but in a different department, the member is permitted to participate in the discussion and scoring. The member may act as a reviewer for such applications.

Guidelines of this nature cannot foresee all possible situations. In cases where these guidelines do not clearly describe a situation or where a member has difficulty making a judgment, NSERC will make the decision.

Important: The review of applications must be based solely on the information provided in the application. Members must not seek extra information (such as updates to the publication status of research papers or visiting external websites linked to within the free-form sections) for the applications they are reviewing.

Members are reminded that, according to the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement for Review Committee Members, External Reviewers and Observers, they must ensure that all review materials are stored in a secure manner to prevent unauthorized access. When no longer required, review materials must be destroyed in a secure manner.

Members have access to the following documents in a secure electronic environment:

• all applications for the given review committee
• scoring spreadsheets for assigned applications
• scoring instructions and tools
• training resources
• meeting materials

During the review process, members should consult the following materials available on the NSERC website:

• Canada Graduate Research Scholarship – Doctoral program
• Canada Postdoctoral Research Award program
• Instructions for completing an application – Form 201
• Equity, diversity and inclusion considerations at each stage of the research process
• Guidelines on the assessment of contributions to research, training and mentoring
• Thinking beyond journal prestige in peer review
• Tutorial videos

Applicants are expected to follow the instructions set out in these materials and members’ scores should reflect this. If any of the information listed above is missing or cannot be accessed, members should contact NSERC.

Members should refer to Appendix A and Appendix B for a summary of selection criteria indicators and the locations within the application where evidence of these indicators may be found for each program.

Applications are evaluated based on the following selection criteria:

• research potential (50%)
• relevant experience and achievements obtained within and beyond academia (50%)

• Quality of research proposal
  • specific, focused and feasible research question(s) and/or objective(s)
  • clear description and soundness of the proposed methodology
  • significance and expected contributions to research
• Demonstration of potential to carry out proposed research relative to the stage of study, lived experience and knowledge systems
• Quality of contributions and extent to which they advance the field of research (including publications, patents, reports, posters, abstracts, monographs, presentations, creative outputs, knowledge translation outputs, community products, etc.)
• Demonstration of sound judgment and ability to think critically
• Integration of EDI considerations (if applicable)
• Demonstration of responsible and ethical research conduct, including honest and thoughtful inquiry, rigorous analysis, commitment to safety and to the dissemination of research results and adherence to the use of professional standards
• Demonstration of originality, initiative, autonomy, relevant community involvement and outreach
• Ability to communicate theoretical, technical and/or scientific concepts clearly and logically in written and oral formats
• Quality of presentation of application
  • adherence to the NSERC online presentation and attachment standards
  • grantsmanship
  • proper spelling and grammar

• Relevant training, such as academic training, lived experience and traditional teachings
• Scholarships, awards and distinctions (amount, duration and prestige)
• Academic record, such as:
  • transcripts
  • duration of previous studies
  • program requirements and courses pursued
  • course load
  • relative standing in program (if available)

Members should consider the entire academic record (active periods only) when assessing academic excellence. Members should also favourably consider situations where an applicant has demonstrated an improving trend or provided an appropriate explanation for their academic record in the Applicant’s statement section of the application. The experience of members plays a key role in this evaluation.

• Professional, academic and extracurricular activities, as well as collaborations with supervisors, colleagues, peers, students and members of the community, such as:
  • teaching, mentoring, supervising and/or coaching
  • managing projects
  • participating in science and/or research promotion
  • participating in community outreach, volunteer work and/or civic engagement
  • chairing committees and/or organizing conferences and meetings
  • participating in departmental or institutional organizations, associations, societies and/or clubs

The onus is on the applicant to provide a clear and complete application that demonstrates attention to detail and permits a comprehensive assessment.

Applications are evaluated based on the following selection criteria:

• research potential and experience (50%)
• quality of proposed research program (50%)

• Contributions to research and development
  • publications, conference presentations and/or proceedings, poster presentations, technical reports or patents

Members should consider the stage of the applicant’s academic career and any relevant research or work experience in the assessment of the contributions to research and development. The assessment must be based on the quality and impact of all contributions, not only on the number of publications or conference presentations. Members must also be mindful of the different publication practices in different disciplines. Where publications are prepared in collaboration with other researchers, the applicant should describe their role and involvement in both the research and the preparation of contributions. For additional guidance, review the NSERC Guidelines on the assessment of contributions to research, training and mentoring.

• Professional, academic and extracurricular interactions and collaborations with supervisors, colleagues, peers, students and members of the community
  • teaching, mentoring, supervising and/or coaching
  • managing projects
  • participating in science promotion, science/community outreach, volunteer work and/or civic engagement
  • chairing committees and/or organizing conferences and meetings
  • participating in departmental or institutional organizations, associations, safety committees, societies and/or clubs
  • industrial work experience
  • showing leadership and active participation in environmental health and safety (for example, laboratory safety)
• Relevant training, such as academic training, lived experience and traditional teachings
• Scholarships and awards
  • awards and/or prizes based on research potential and experience
  • awards for papers, reports, posters, oral presentations, teaching and/or volunteer/outreach work
• Researcher attributes
  • critical thinking, application of knowledge, judgment, originality, initiative and autonomy
• Ability to complete projects within an appropriate time period
  • if applicable, the applicant’s explanation of any special circumstances must be taken into consideration
• Participation in publication writing
  • when publications have been prepared in collaboration with other students or postdoctoral researchers, the applicant should describe their role and involvement in both the research and the preparation of contributions
• Quality of presentation of application
  • adherence to the NSERC online presentation and attachment standards
  • grantsmanship
  • proper spelling and grammar

The onus is on the applicant to provide a clear and complete application that demonstrates attention to detail and permits a comprehensive assessment.

• Significance, feasibility, clarity and merit of research proposal
  • specific, well-focused and realistic objectives
  • clear and detailed description of the proposed methodology
  • significance and expected contributions to research
  • integration of EDI considerations (if applicable)
• Justification for location of tenure
  • appropriateness of the location for the proposed research
  • suitability for contributing to applicant’s professional development and career goals
  • accessibility of necessary equipment and resources

Applicants wishing to hold a CPRA at their PhD-granting institution are encouraged to provide a justification.

• Academic training and relevant work experience
  • complementarity of expertise and the proposed research
  • capacity to undertake the proposed research (technical skills, lab techniques, experience, etc.)

All applications are reviewed with the same expectations in terms of the quality and potential of the contributions that have been or will be, produced or undertaken. Some additional factors that may influence the review process are detailed below.

In some instances, an applicant may return to an institution for graduate studies after obtaining work experience. In these situations, members should consider the relevant work experience and, where applicable, factor this into their evaluation.

NSERC supports research whose major challenges lie in the natural sciences and engineering (NSE), other than the health sciences. Research primarily in the NSE that advances NSE knowledge is eligible for NSERC support, even if it may have potential future applications in human health, such as diagnosis or treatment. Applicants are instructed to review the following resources and to select the agency where their application will be reviewed by experts in disciplines closest to their field(s) of study.

• Selecting the appropriate federal granting agency
• Addendum to the guidelines for the eligibility of applications related to health

Members who have doubts about whether the proposed research is eligible for NSERC support should review the application on the same basis as all others, but should alert NSERC staff as soon as possible. Final decisions on subject matter eligibility are the responsibility of NSERC.

Considering equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in the research process promotes research excellence by making research outcomes more ethically sound, rigorous, reproducible and useful. It is important to consider EDI through each stage of the research process including, but not limited to, the research questions, design, methodology, analysis, interpretation and dissemination of results and integrate these considerations where relevant.

For these reasons, all applications include the Equity, diversity and inclusion considerations in the research process module, which asks applicants to consider how EDI considerations have (or have not) been taken into account at any of the stages of the research process for the proposed research. Applicants are instructed to review the Equity, diversity and inclusion considerations at each stage of the research process section of the NSERC guide on integrating equity, diversity and inclusion considerations in research web page and the Strengthening research by integrating EDI considerations in the research process video for more information and guidance on this module. Members are expected to take the contents of this module into account during the review process.

Applicants are instructed to integrate EDI considerations into their proposed research, if applicable. If relevant EDI considerations that would increase the quality and impact of the research are not taken into account, members should factor this into their evaluation as they would any other indicator of research potential.

If EDI considerations are not relevant to the research, their lack of inclusion should not negatively impact the evaluation.

NSERC expects members to consistently guard against the possibility of unconscious bias influencing the decision-making process, whether these biases are based on schools of thought, the perceived value of fundamental versus applied research, areas of research or research approaches (including emerging ones), size or reputation of an institution, experience or prominence of the proposed supervisor, age, gender and/or other personal factors associated with the applicant. NSERC cautions members against any judgment of an application based on such factors. To assist members in recognizing potential bias, all members must complete the Bias in Peer Review online learning module. Members are also encouraged to complete one of the Sex and Gender training modules produced by CIHR.

NSERC is actively engaged in increasing EDI practices in its review processes, enhancing the integrity of the review process and ensuring access to the largest pool of qualified participants, including all underrepresented groups. For more information and resources, see NSERC’s Equity, Diversity and Inclusion web page.

Important: When discussing applications at review meetings, use anonymizing language such as “the applicant” in place of the applicant’s name and “they/them/their” in place of gendered pronouns. This separates your assessment of the applicant from perceptions, presumptions or unconscious bias related to their race, ethnicity, nationality and/or gender. Additionally, any discussions must also be free from words or sentences that reflect prejudiced, stereotyped or discriminatory language of particular people, groups or institutions. The use of anonymizing language has been shown to decrease unconscious bias during the review process. For further information on unconscious bias, consult the Department for Women and Gender Equality Canada’s Gender-based Analysis Plus: Unconscious bias web page.

Members must consider any special circumstances the applicant has chosen to provide that have had an impact on their performance and/or productivity. This includes delays in disseminating research results due to health problems, family responsibilities, parental leave, disabilities, trauma and loss or other applicable circumstances. The special circumstances section should include the following information as needed:

• the duration of the delay/interruption and, if applicable, a percentage of reduction in workload
• a clear description of its impact, including, if relevant, the type of research contribution impacted (for example, publications, data collection, presentations, etc.)

Members must recognize the impacts of the delays and/or, if appropriate, assess the quality of the applicant’s performance and/or productivity during their active period (that is, excluding the period of special circumstances).

NSERC is a signatory to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). DORA is a worldwide initiative whose mission is to advance practical and robust approaches to research assessment globally and across all scholarly disciplines. It draws attention to the problem of overreliance on journal-based metrics in hiring, promotion, and funding decisions, and encourages a community-driven change.

In alignment with DORA’s principles and NSERC’s commitment to research excellence in Canada, NSERC’s Guidelines on the assessment of contributions to research, training and mentoring outline how a wide range of research results and outcomes are considered and valued as part of the assessment process, with a focus on the quality and impact of these contributions.

Quality indicators include:

• novelty, creativity and/or innovation in the methodology and/or application of the research
• suitable and rigorous methodology
• consideration of EDI in all aspects of the research process
• transparency, accessibility of results and appropriate data stewardship
• exposure for trainees to non-academic work environments

Impact indicators include:

• acceptance and use of research results by stakeholders, including members of the research community, relevant partners, specific communities or others who may benefit from the research
• increases to equitable and inclusive participation in the research ecosystem, including enhanced engagement and retention of underrepresented groups in the NSE
• advances to reconciliation and the decolonization of Indigenous research
• contributions to economic development or to environmental or social innovations or influence on current policy, guidelines, regulations, laws, standards and/or practice

Many contributions to industry or other end-users take the form of confidential technical or internal reports (to protect proprietary information) or are subject to patent or copyright protection. If an application’s contribution record includes items of this nature and these cannot be elaborated upon in the application for confidentiality reasons, the application may include an additional one-page letter written by the institution or company involved, attesting to the confidential nature of the contribution.

This letter must attest solely to the confidential or protected nature and significance of the contribution in as specific terms as possible and cannot serve as an additional reference letter. NSERC staff carefully review the contents of all submitted letters prior to approving their addition to an application.

If a technology transfer letter is included in an assigned application, members must take the contents of the letter into account during the review process.

For each selection criterion, members must place each of their assigned applications into one of six possible merit categories: 6 (highest), 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1 (lowest). Applications placed into merit categories 3, 4 or 5 may be given an optional “+” or “-” to allow for better differentiation among those applications which fall near key NSERC funding lines.

Members must adhere to the forced distributions shown in Table 2: Doctoral and postdoctoral application scoring system, when scoring their assigned applications. It is important that members use the full range of merit scores.

An application’s merit is scored relative to that of all other applications received. Applications placed in merit categories 1 and 2 are not necessarily of poor quality. Instead, they may represent worthy applications within a group of exceptional applications.

Once the reviewers’ initial merit scores have been returned to NSERC, they are compiled and a list is produced.

Postdoctoral applications near or above the funding cut-off line are discussed at review meetings. A subset of the highest-scored applications may be pre-awarded without being discussed. Applications that have been flagged by members or NSERC staff for any reason may also be discussed by the review committee during review meetings for postdoctoral applications.

There are no review meetings associated with the review process for doctoral applications.

Highly-scored applications and those flagged for discussion by members or NSERC staff, are discussed and scored at the review meeting for postdoctoral applications. All members meet virtually to discuss this subset of applications and are provided with a list of the applications in advance of the meeting. All members must read these applications prior to the meeting as they are expected to discuss and provide a score for each one unless they have a conflict of interest. Typically, pre-awarded applications are not scored at the review meetings.

With the exception of members with a conflict of interest, the entire review committee is present for the discussion and scoring of each application. The first reviewer assigned to the application summarizes its strengths and weaknesses. Following this assessment, the other reviewers highlight areas of agreement or disagreement with the first reviewer’s analysis. Comments or questions may be raised by the other members and a general discussion will follow, as required. After the discussion, members confidentially provide a score for each selection criterion.

For the review of applications that were submitted in French, members must be able to read and understand French to participate in the discussion and scoring. The decision to participate is at the member’s discretion. Note that spoken French is not a requirement for participation on the review committee; therefore, members may share their comments on French-language applications in the official language of their choice.

NSERC applies the relative weighting for each selection criterion and calculates the final score for each application based on the initial reviewers’ scores or the scores allocated by the entire review committee, depending on whether or not the application was discussed at the review meeting for postdoctoral applications. Based on these scores, a final list is produced.

Equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) strengthen research communities and the quality, social relevance and impact of research. Self-Identification Data Collection in Support of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion provides information on the diversity of the population applying for, receiving and reviewing applications for agency funds. This data is important for monitoring our programs and informing measures to increase EDI among all those involved in the research enterprise.

Self-identification data is collected as part of the application process and is not seen or used by NSERC’s review committee members or by the applicant’s references. Institutions are permitted to recommend an unlimited number of self-identified Indigenous applicants to the CGRS D program above their application quota. In order to be considered for this, Indigenous applicants must provide consent in the application form to share this information with their institutions and NSERC.

To address systemic barriers that limit the full participation of all talented individuals, NSERC aims for the proportion of funded applications from those who self-identify as members of underrepresented groups to be at least similar to the proportion of applications received from these groups. This rebalancing of proportions is only used as needed. Underrepresented groups may include women and gender minorities, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, members of visible minorities/racialized groups and members of 2SLGBTQIA+ communities.

To complete this equalization process, NSERC calculates the proportion of applications and award offers for members of underrepresented groups. If the application rate is higher than the award rate, meritorious applications from members of these groups may be offered additional awards. To be considered as part of this equalization process, applicants must provide their consent.

Self-identification data is also collected from review committee members who participate in the review process. This data is used for the purposes of program operations (including the recruitment of external individuals for merit review processes, where applicable) and planning, performance measurement and monitoring, evaluation and audits and may be used in aggregate to report to government or to the public. Self-identification information will be reported in a form (for example, aggregate) to ensure the protection of the identity of any individual.

Applicants to the CGRS D program are notified of their results by the end of April.

Applicants to the CPRA program are notified of their results by the end of March.

Due to the large number of applications received, members do not provide written feedback.

Members appointed to the review committee are asked to read and sign the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality for Review Committee Members, External Reviewers and Observers, describing NSERC’s expectations and requirements.

All application material (electronic copies of applications, printouts, notes, etc.) is provided to members in confidence and must be used for review purposes only. Such material must be kept in a secure place, not accessible to colleagues or students. In addition, material that the member no longer requires must be destroyed in a secure manner. All personal notes and documents must be securely destroyed at the conclusion of the review process. All applications and documentation provided to members electronically must be deleted. If NSERC requires assistance in providing additional information for particular cases after the review process, new copies of relevant material will be provided.

All funding recommendations are subject to approval by NSERC. Outcomes may be changed for reasons such as budget, administrative error or lack of full adherence to NSERC policies.

All matters discussed during review meetings are confidential and must not be divulged to others. Notifying applicants of the results of deliberations is the responsibility of NSERC staff following official approval. Results must not be disclosed by members. If approached by an applicant or other individual concerning a decision or any other matter, members must decline discussion and refer the person to NSERC. Staff will act as the liaison between the review committees and the applicant.

NSERC must adhere to the Privacy Act. Personal information provided by applicants must be used only for the purpose of assessing applications and making funding decisions. The use or disclosure of such information for any other purpose is forbidden.

The information collected for this purpose must be collected directly from the individual. It may be collected from other sources only as part of the formal review process. For this reason, members must not use or consider information about an applicant that has been obtained in any other way (for example, by a member by virtue of their involvement in other activities).

Members are not asked to submit written comments to NSERC about an applicant or application. As per the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act, applicants have a right to request information about themselves which is held by NSERC. A written opinion of a reference about an application (for example, reference letter) is available to the applicant; the name of the reference is not.

Current lists of members are published by NSERC on its website.

NSERC, like all other federal institutions, has a key role to play in the implementation of the Official Languages Act. NSERC has an obligation to ensure that the public can communicate with and receive services from the agency in either official language.

Review committees must ensure that all applications receive a full and detailed review, regardless of the official language of presentation. On occasion, this may entail consultation with NSERC staff to identify members with adequate linguistic capability.

Applicants must adhere to a number of requirements for certain types of research, all of which are available on the NSERC web page.

Reviewers must alert NSERC to any potential concerns or problems related to the above items that are observed in information sessions or during the review process. Examples include:

• inadequate sensitivity to the potential concerns of human subjects and/or inadequate provisions for the participation of human subjects in experiments, as required by the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans
• use of animals in experiments when the significance of the proposed research does not appear to justify either the use of animal subjects or the proposed experimental protocol inclusion of controlled information in an application
• inadequate training of graduate students in the handling of hazardous chemicals or biological substances
• potentially harmful effects on the environment or an inaccurate or incomplete assessment of these effects
• research that involves the use of human pluripotent stem cells where the applicant has checked the “Yes” on their application

Concerns should be presented to NSERC staff to determine whether there is a means of resolving any apparent problems quickly or whether offering an award should be delayed pending resolution of the problem.

Canada’s federal granting agencies—the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council—are committed to fostering and maintaining an environment that supports and promotes the responsible conduct of research. The Tri-agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research sets out the responsibilities and corresponding policies for researchers, institutions and the agencies that together help support and promote a positive research environment.

The agencies expect the highest standards of integrity in the research that they fund and in the review process they manage. The electronic submission of an application to the agencies commits the applicant(s) to a number of principles, including compliance with the Tri-agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research. Should members identify, during the review process, any apparent lack of integrity (for example, possible misrepresentation in an agency application or related document; providing incomplete, inaccurate or false information in a grant or award application or related document), they should bring their concerns to the attention of agency staff at the earliest opportunity. The agency will then refer any allegations to the Secretariat regarding the responsible conduct of research for follow-up. Such allegations should not be a consideration during the review process nor should they be part of the review committee’s discussions.

Members who raise concerns should rest assured that the matter will be addressed by the Secretariat in accordance with the Tri-agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research; however, members will not be privy to the outcome of the matter, as the findings are confidential and no personal information is shared.

Members of an NSERC review committee who find themselves in the position of having to respond to formal allegations concerning the responsible conduct of research will not participate in the work of the review committee while an investigation is underway.

In addition, members should notify the agencies of any conflict of interest—financial or otherwise—that might influence the agencies’ decision on what applications the members can review. Members and reviewers are responsible for respecting the confidentiality of application material and for declaring conflicts of interest. Should members become aware of a situation that violates the integrity of the review process, they should discuss this immediately with agency staff.

Note: Members must consider any special circumstances that have had an effect on the performance and/or productivity of the applicant.

Note: Members must consider any special circumstances that have had an effect on the performance and/or productivity of the applicant.