2023 edition

This is a guide for members of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) selection committee that is responsible for the evaluation of Chairs for Inclusion in Science and Engineering (CISE) applications. It describes the activities carried out by the members and chair of this selection committee, as well as the policies, guidelines and deliverables for each of these activities.

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

For more information regarding the CISE program and related policies and guidelines, contact cise-cisg@nserc-crsng.gc.ca.

The Chairs for Inclusion in Science and Engineering (CISE) program is an evolution of the Chairs for Women in Science and Engineering (CWSE) program, which has traditionally funded five individual Chairs across Canada—one for each of the Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies and British Columbia/Yukon regions, linked through a funded national network—working to increase the participation and retention of women in science and engineering and to provide role models for women active in, and considering, careers in these fields.

The CISE program builds on the successful CWSE program, continuing to promote the participation and retention of women in science and engineering, while expanding to further address issues faced by a broader range of underrepresented groups. It is being launched as a two-year pilot to replace the outgoing CWSE Chair in the Atlantic region with a team of three CISE Chairs at multiple universities across this region.

The goal of the CISE pilot is to support a team of researchers in the Atlantic region who contribute to a culture of inclusion in the natural sciences and engineering fields by catalyzing networks of supporters of this work, promoting equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in the research ecosystem, and undertaking activities to enhance awareness and understanding of barriers and inequities faced by members of underrepresented groups in these fields.

Underrepresented groups include, but are not limited to, women, Indigenous Peoples (First Nations, Inuit and Métis), persons with disabilities, members of visible minorities/racialized groups and members of LGBTQ2+ communities. Intersectionality among these groups as well as with other dimensions must also be considered. The team will be responsible for proposing initiatives that are most relevant to the issues within their region.

NSERC will contribute an initial $130,000 in project funds per year to be shared by the team. In addition, NSERC will match cash and in-kind contributions from the host universities and supporting organizations up to a maximum of $70,000 per year, for a total of $200,000 in project funds per year for the team. In-kind contributions can consist of staff time, salaries, equipment, and any other resources provided by the supporting organizations.

To help the chairholders maintain their research activity at a high level during their tenure as CISE Chairs, NSERC will also match cash contributions of at least $20,000 from host universities with $25,000 to support a postdoctoral fellow (PDF) or research engineer for each team member.

Teams have the option of applying for a CISE PromoScience supplement valued at $30,000/year as part of their CISE applications. As the CISE and PromoScience programs have some complementary goals, this opportunity for streamlined access to additional funding is presented as an optional aspect of the CISE application process.

The maximum total amount of annual funding available for the team is $305,000.

Membership on the committee will be drawn from Canadian universities, foreign institutions, industry and/or government laboratories, not-for-profit organizations, and potentially from NSERC staff. Recently retired individuals may be considered as potential members. Members review and score applications according to policies and guidelines established by NSERC. For a complete list of members, refer to the NSERC Selection Committees and Evaluation Groups web page.

NSERC may seek nominations and expressions of interest among members of the natural science and engineering (NSE) community to join the selection committee or draw from other calls for membership as applicable. Reviewers are recruited based on expertise, experience, geographic region, language abilities and suitability. NSERC strives to have a diverse selection committee representative of Canada’s regions. For more information about the recruitment of members, consult the Guidelines Governing Membership of NSERC’s Peer Review Committees.

Membership terms are normally on an ad hoc basis. When possible, members may be asked to serve again in a subsequent competition. The presence of experienced members on the selection committee promotes consistency and continuity in the selection process and assists in the orientation of new members.

Selection committee members participate in the review of applications and provide recommendations based on the selection criteria. Specific responsibilities include

• completing the self-identification questionnaire and the Bias in Peer Review training module and taking steps to help mitigate unconscious biases during the review process
• reading the following documents:
  • Chairs for Inclusion in Science and Engineering (CISE) program description
  • Guidelines on the assessment of contributions to research, training and mentoring
  • NSERC guide on integrating equity, diversity and inclusion considerations in research
  • Selection Committee Guide for the Chairs for Inclusion in Science and Engineering (CISE) program (i.e., this document)
• identifying conflicts of interest for all applications received
• participating in orientation meetings and discussions
• reading, scoring, and providing in-depth evaluations of all applications during the initial scoring phase
• suggesting and helping finalize questions for the candidate interviews
• participating in deliberations and ranking all applications discussed during the review meeting
• preparing and reviewing written comments from the selection committee for applicants
• providing feedback to NSERC staff on policy and procedural items for future improvements (optional)
• recommending potential new members (optional)

The selection committee chair helps to ensure the orderly and complete review of applications and the transmission of recommendations to NSERC. They lead the selection 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. The chair plays an important oversight role and provides policy advice and guidance to NSERC. The chair also shares the roles and responsibilities of members.

NSERC staff who are managing the selection committee are not members and do not evaluate, discuss, or score applications. Staff oversee membership, provide advice on NSERC policies, guidelines, and procedures, determine application eligibility, and help ensure consistency in the review of all applications.

Members are required to attend various virtual meetings.

At the start of the review process, an orientation session is held for all 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 (if applicable) to share best practices and provide advice to new members.

After the initial scoring of applications, members participate in a virtual meeting to approve the shortlist of candidates. During this meeting, members will also be asked to finalize a series of questions to be used during the interview portion of the review meeting. In preparation for the shortlist meeting, members should propose questions that they think will be helpful in assessing the candidates.

During this meeting, the selection committee will have the opportunity to interview each shortlisted team of candidates based on the approved questions. Note that the candidates will have access to the list of questions approximately one week prior to the review meeting. Each shortlisted application will be discussed and ranked (see section 3 for more information).

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

Participation of experts in the review of CISE applications is crucial to the success of the program; serving in this capacity involves a notable 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.

CISE applications are submitted directly to NSERC by the applicants.

All members review all applications. Members that have a conflict of interest with one or more applications or cannot review due to language proficiency will not be able to participate in the review of applications and will be replaced.

Members must adhere to the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality for Review Committee Members, External Reviewers, and Observers and are responsible for declaring any conflict of interest prior to the review of applications.

Guidelines cannot address all possible situations. In cases where these guidelines do not clearly describe a situation or where a member has difficulty making a judgment, NSERC staff will make the decision in consultation with the Chair of the committee.

The review of applications must be based on the information provided in the application. Members can visit links that are provided in the application but should refrain from seeking information from other sources.

Members are reminded that, according to the undefined, 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
• scoring spreadsheets
• scoring instructions and procedures

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

• CISE program description
• Guidelines on the assessment of contributions to research, training and mentoring
• NSERC guide on integrating equity, diversity and inclusion considerations in research
• Selection Committee Guide for the CISE program (i.e., this document)

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 staff.

The CISE selection committee will evaluate all Chair applications according to the following selection criteria:

Potential of the team (weighted at 50% of overall score)

• Excellence of the candidates:
  • appropriate expertise to undertake the proposed activities
  • experience in research in the natural sciences and engineering
  • experience in EDI-related issues in the research ecosystem
  • potential for impact and influence in the natural sciences and engineering
• Synergy of the team:
  • extent to which the team brings a diversity of perspectives and its potential for broad impact in the region
  • complementarity of the team members
  • potential of the team to successfully undertake the proposed activities

Quality of the proposal (weighted at 50% of overall score)

• Proposed strategies: merit and projected impact of the proposed strategies, including how the proposed activities are informed by evidence, take intersectionality into account and respond to needs of the region, as well as evidence of meaningful engagement with underrepresented groups and/or real-world examples of past success with similar approaches
• Cohesiveness of the proposal: extent to which the proposal is developed in a unified way and highlights complementary areas across the proposed activities to amplify impact
• Communication and networking plan: appropriateness of the communication and networking plan to ensure maximum impact at both the regional and national levels
• Feasibility: appropriateness of the budget in relation to the proposed activities, and demonstration of the necessary collaborations and support to successfully undertake the proposed activities
• Working environment: appropriateness of considerations of EDI in recruitment and in the working environment for highly qualified personnel (HQP) and/or other program personnel

All applications are reviewed with the same expectations in terms of quality. Some additional factors that may influence the review of any or all of the selection criteria are detailed below.

3.6.1 Implicit or unconscious biases

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, or personal factors associated with the applicants. To assist members in recognizing potential bias, all members are asked to complete the Bias in Peer Review online learning module.

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

NSERC strongly encourages the use of inclusive language. Any discussions should be free from words or sentences that reflect prejudiced, stereotyped or discriminatory language of particular people, groups or institutions. For further information on unconscious bias, consult the Department for Women and Gender Equality’s Gender-based Analysis Plus: Unconscious bias web page.

3.6.2 Special circumstances

Members must consider any special circumstances mentioned in the application. This includes delays in disseminating research results due to health problems, family responsibilities, parental leave, disabilities, trauma and loss or other applicable circumstances including delays related to COVID-19.

Members must recognize the impacts of the delays in their assessment.

3.6.3 San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)

DORA is a global initiative whose purpose is to support the development and promotion of best practices in the assessment of scholarly research. It aims to address the negative consequences of unintended overuse of journal publications as a primary quality indicator for research output. As a signatory of DORA, NSERC has reaffirmed its commitment to excellence in research evaluation and the importance of knowledge translation. The DORA principles are reflected in NSERC’s overall approaches to research assessment, and in its commitment to continuous improvement of assessment practices.

To promote NSERC’s support of research excellence in Canada and incorporate the principles of DORA, NSERC has developed new Guidelines on the assessment of contributions to research, training and mentoring. These guidelines recognize and value a broader range of contributions, including outreach and mentoring, and emphasize their quality and impact.

All members review all applications. For each of the two selection criteria, which are equally weighted at 50% each, members must assign a score out of 10 points for a total score out of 20 points.

Teams have the option of applying for a CISE PromoScience supplement valued at $30,000/year as part of their CISE application. As the CISE and PromoScience programs have some complementary goals, this opportunity for streamlined access to additional funding is presented as an optional aspect of the CISE application process. Applying for a CISE PromoScience supplement is done through the CISE application; no separate application is required.

To be eligible for the CISE PromoScience supplement, at least one component of the team’s proposal must focus on hands-on, interactive science or engineering activities to help Canadian youth from underrepresented groups develop science and engineering skills and interests. The CISE PromoScience supplement is conditional on approval from the CISE selection committee.

Teams applying for the CISE PromoScience supplement must clearly indicate this in the summary section of their proposal.

While members should consider the entirety of the application when providing their scores and ranks, they must also indicate if they support the funding of the PromoScience supplement based on the quality and potential impact of the proposed activities.

Once the members’ initial scores have been returned to NSERC, they are compiled and a list is produced. A shortlist of the highest-ranked applications is created in consultation with the selection committee. The number of applications on the shortlist is dependent on the number of quality applications received.

The entire selection committee is present for the candidate interviews and discussion of each application. For each application, members are assigned a speaking order (first reviewer, second reviewer, etc.) to facilitate the discussion process.

After each interview, the first reviewer summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the application, including the responses to the interview questions, according to the selection criteria. Following this assessment, subsequent reviewers add any observation not already mentioned and highlight areas of agreement or disagreement with the first reviewer’s analysis. A general discussion follows where comments or questions may be raised by all members in any order.

After the final deliberations, all members confidentially provide an overall rank for each application using a secure electronic process. Using the same secure method, they also submit a yes/no response indicating if they support the funding of the PromoScience supplement (if applicable).

A final ranked list based on the members’ rankings is produced and is used to identify the top candidate team. The yes/no responses for the PromoScience supplement are tallied to determine if it will be funded (if applicable).

All teams receive feedback via written comments.

Those that were not shortlisted receive a brief compilation of comments from the selection committee members based on the initial scoring phase.

For the shortlisted teams, the first reviewer is responsible for preparing the written comments, ensuring that they accurately reflect the general consensus of the selection committee, rather than their own personal views. The comments are reviewed by the selection committee members and approved by the Chair.

NSERC staff do a final review of all comments, in consultation with the Chair, to ensure that the feedback is consistent with NSERC policies and guidelines and is appropriate for transmission to the applicants.

NSERC typically communicates the results, including written comments, to applicants approximately three months after the application deadline.

Equity, diversity, and inclusion strengthen research communities and the quality, social relevance, and impact of research. Self-identification data provides information on the diversity of the population applying for, receiving and reviewing applications for agency funds. These data are important for monitoring the fairness of our programs and informing future measures to increase equity, diversity, and inclusion 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 selection committee members or by the applicant’s references.

Self-identification data is also collected from selection 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.

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

All application material (electronic copies of applications, print outs, 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 others, including colleagues or students. In addition, material that the member no longer requires must be destroyed in a secure manner (that is, shredding printed material and deleting electronic material from personal computers). 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.

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 the review meeting 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 selection committee 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).

As per the Access to Information Act, applicants have a right to access information about themselves that is held by NSERC.

Lists of members are published regularly 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.

Selection 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.

The activities of NSERC are subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The purpose of the Act is to give effect to the principle that every individual should have equal opportunity with other individuals to make the life that he or she is able and wishes to have, consistent with the duties and obligations as a member of society, without being hindered or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices.

For all purposes of the Act, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted are prohibited grounds for discrimination. Where the grounds for discrimination are pregnancy or childbirth, the discrimination is deemed to be on the grounds of sex.

It is a discriminatory practice to deny a service to an individual, or to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual in the provision of that service.

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

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. Concerns should be presented to NSERC staff to determine whether there is a means of resolving any apparent problem quickly, or whether 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 of Canada—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 on 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 selection 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 selection 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 selection committee while an investigation is underway.

In addition, members should notify the agency of any conflict of interest—financial or otherwise—that might influence the agency’s 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.