NSERC Discovery Grant Writing Workshop

Janet Wood Group Chair, EG1501

(Genes Cells and Molecules) April 28, 2015

Discovery Grants Program

Objectives To promote and maintain a diversified base of

high-quality research capability in the natural sciences and engineering (NSE) in Canadian universities.

To foster research excellence. To provide a stimulating environment for

research training.

Evaluation Process Overview Two-step process separates merit assessment from funding recommendations: Merit Assessment: EGs use six-point scale

– Excellence of the researcher; – Merit of the proposal; and – Contributions to the training of HQP.

Applications grouped in “bins” of comparable merit. Funding recommendations: applicants with similar

overall merit ratings within an Evaluation Group (EG) receive comparable funding, with possible modulation related to the cost of research. Demystifying the review process for NSERC Discovery Grants

http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/Videos-Videos/DG_eng.asp

Roles and Responsibilities in the EG Members Key participants in the

review process (5 per application)

Act as reviewers within their EG and for other EGs (joint reviews)

Input on policy issues related to the discipline

Executive Committee Consists of Co-Chairs and Group

Chair Ensures quality of process

(consistency and equity) Confirms assignment of applications

including joint reviews Provides recommendation to NSERC

on options to balance the EG budget following review of applications

Group Chair acts as EG representative on Committee on Grants & Scholarships (COGS) – Acts as spokesperson on policies,

scientific/ engineering issues

Note: This presentation will inevitably be biased by my primary association with EG1501 (Genes, Cells & Molecules) coloured by some interactions with EG1502 (Biological Systems & Functions) EG1504 (Chemistry)

The Conference Model

Evaluation structure consists of 12 Evaluation Groups The evaluation process is similar to a scientific

conference, with several sessions meeting in parallel. Members are assigned to EG sections and applications

on the basis of the match between their expertise and application subject matter. – Members may participate in reviews in several EGs.

Flexibility allows applications at the interface between Evaluation Groups to be reviewed by a combination of members with pertinent expertise from relevant groups.

How Does the Conference Model Work? Genes, Cells and Molecules EG

Group Chair ~ 55 members

5 Section Chairs

Biological Systems and Functions Group Chair

~60 members 5 Section Chairs

Evolution and Ecology EG Group Chair

~25 members 3 Section Chairs

Mic

robi

olog

y

Cel

l Phy

siol

ogy

Mol

ecul

ar N

euro

scie

nce

Gen

etic

s B

ioch

emis

try

Imm

unol

ogy

Pla

nt P

hysi

olog

y Fo

od S

cien

ce

Ani

mal

Phy

siol

ogy

Cog

nitiv

e S

cien

ce

Beh

avio

ural

Neu

rosc

ienc

e

Ani

mal

Pro

duct

ion

Kin

esio

logy

Taxo

nom

y

Evo

lutio

n Evo

lutio

n of

Beh

avio

ur

Eco

syst

ems

Pop

ulat

ions

Conference Model How It Works Inside an Evaluation Group, applications are assessed within

Sections. Reviewers are drawn from the Evaluation Group’s membership

as a function of the members’ expertise and the need to ensure balanced reviews.

Members from different Evaluation Groups may participate in the review of any application, if required to ensure a comprehensive review. Referred to as Joint Reviews. – Primary Evaluation Group: leads the review (“home” of application). – Secondary Evaluation Group(s): provides expert reviewer(s). – Reviewer(s) from secondary Evaluation Group(s): among the five

reviewers assessing the application (full assessment, participation in deliberations, and vote).

Joint Reviews Applications that cross boundaries of Evaluation Groups

(multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary) are reviewed by a combination of members with pertinent expertise from relevant groups.

EG suggested by applicant usually the closest EG related to the research area (primary). Reviewers from other EGs are added as necessary based on expertise. – JRs can involve one or more visiting reviewers from one or more

different Egs. – As for all other applications, normally 5 reviewers per applications

with equal vote, regardless of number of EGs participating.

For any application, decision to hold JR informed by: – Content of NOI – Consultation with EGs – Content of full application

NOI Suggested EG

Research Topics

Keywords

Proposal Summary

Determining a Joint Review

Sugg

este

d EG

PO

Chair

Member

JR EG

(s) PO

Chair

Member

Applicant

Decision on Joint Review

Application

Applicant Suggested EG

Possible JR EGs

Implementation of the Conference Model

Chair

Program Officer

First Internal

Reader

Rea

der

Reader

Second Internal

Excellence Outstanding Outstanding

Outstanding Outstanding Very Strong

Conflicts?

Merit Outstanding Very Strong

Very Strong Very Strong Very Strong

HQP Outstanding Outstanding

Outstanding Very Strong Very Strong

COR Factor: N N N N N

Observer

DAS: 1 2 1 1 2

Merit Indicators

Discovery Accelerator Supplement Provides substantial and timely resources to researchers who have a superior research program that is highly rated in terms of originality and innovation, and who show strong potential to become international leaders within their field. These additional resources should enable a researcher with an established research program to capitalize on an opportunity (e.g., a recent research breakthrough, a paradigm shift, or a new strategy to tackle a scientific problem or research question, etc.).

Two-Step Review Process

Fund

ing

"Bin

s"

A (L, N, H) B (L, N, H)

C (L. N. H) D (L, N, H).

.

. N O P

Exce

ptio

nal

Out

stan

ding

Very

Stro

ng

Stro

ng

Mod

erat

e

Insu

ffici

ent

Excellence of researcher

Merit of proposal

Contribution to training of HQP

Cost of research High Normal Low

Fund

ing

"Bin

s"

A (L, N, H) B (L, N, H)

C (L. N. H) D (L, N, H).

.

. N O P

Exce

ptio

nal

Out

stan

ding

Very

Stro

ng

Stro

ng

Mod

erat

e

Insu

ffici

ent

Excellence of researcher

Merit of proposal

Contribution to training of HQP

Cost of research High Normal Low

Merit assessment Funding

recommendation

Possible Combination of Rating Indicators for Funding Bins

Fatal Flaws: A rating of Insufficient on any criteria Moderate on EoR for an establish researcher

BinExceptional Exceptional Exceptional AOutstanding Exceptional Exceptional BVery Strong Exceptional ExceptionalOutstanding Outstanding Exceptional

Strong Exceptional ExceptionalVery Strong Outstanding ExceptionalOutstanding Outstanding Outstanding

Moderate Exceptional ExceptionalStrong Outstanding Exceptional

Very Strong Very Strong ExceptionalVery Strong Outstanding OutstandingModerate Outstanding Exceptional

Strong Very Strong ExceptionalStrong Outstanding Outstanding

Very Strong Very Strong OutstandingExceptional Exceptional Insufficient

Strong Strong ExceptionalModerate Very Strong ExceptionalModerate Outstanding Outstanding

Strong Very Strong OutstandingVery Strong Very Strong Very StrongOutstanding Exceptional Insufficient

Moderate Strong ExceptionalStrong Strong Outstanding

Moderate Very Strong OutstandingStrong Very Strong Very Strong

Very Strong Exceptional InsufficientOutstanding Outstanding Insufficient

Indicator Combinations

C

D

E

F

G

H

BinModerate Moderate ExceptionalModerate Strong Outstanding

Strong Strong Very StrongModerate Very Strong Very Strong

Strong Exceptional InsufficientVery Strong Outstanding InsufficientModerate Moderate OutstandingModerate Strong Very Strong

Strong Strong StrongModerate Exceptional Insufficient

Strong Outstanding InsufficientVery Strong Very Strong InsufficientInsufficient Insufficient ExceptionalModerate Moderate Very StrongModerate Strong StrongModerate Outstanding Insufficient

Strong Very Strong InsufficientInsufficient Insufficient OutstandingModerate Moderate Strong

Strong Strong InsufficientModerate Very Strong InsufficientInsufficient Insufficient Very StrongModerate Moderate ModerateModerate Strong InsufficientInsufficient Insufficient StrongModerate Moderate InsufficientInsufficient Insufficient Moderate OInsufficient Insufficient Insufficient P

Indicator Combinations

K

L

I

J

M

N

Chemistry Discovery Grants Conference Model in Action

Organic

Biological Materials and Polymers

Inorganic

Physical Chemistry

Environmental Atmospheric

Theoretical, Computational

Analytical

Joint Reviews with Geosciences

Evaluation Group

Joint Reviews with Genes, Cells & Molecules

Evaluation Group

Joint Reviews with Physics

Evaluation Group

Joint Reviews with Materials and Chemical Eng.

Evaluation Group

Executive Committee Meeting

Schematic (simplified) representation of the Stream organization

Room 1 Room 2 Room 3