Selection committee guide

1. Overview of the Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship program

The Government of Canada launched the Vanier CGS program in 2008 to strengthen Canada's ability to attract and retain world-class doctoral students and establish Canada as a global centre of excellence in research and higher learning. Vanier Scholars demonstrate leadership skills and a high standard of scholarly achievement in graduate studies in the social sciences and humanities, natural sciences and/or engineering, and health.

Students wishing to apply for a Vanier CGS must do so through the Canadian institution to which they are applying for doctoral studies. Based on their quotas, Canadian institutions will forward a limited number of nominations to the Vanier CGS program.

Up to 166 Vanier Scholars are awarded each year and are divided among the three federal granting agencies, who each offer 55 awards annually. The additional award is rotated annually between NSERC and CIHR.

The Vanier-Banting Secretariat, which is housed within CIHR, is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the program.

2. Policies and Considerations Impacting the review process

The selection committee members are asked to keep in mind the following policies and guidelines when reviewing nominations.

• 2.1. Confidentiality of nomination material

  When logged onto ResearchNet, selection committee members are asked to read and agree to follow the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement for Review Committee Members, External Reviewers, and Observers, which describes the expectations and requirements of the agencies.

  Nominations are provided to selection committee members in confidence and should be used for review purposes only. Such material should be kept in a secure place, not accessible to colleagues or students. In addition, material that the selection committee member no longer requires should be destroyed in a secure manner (i.e., shredded). All personal notes and documents must be securely destroyed at the conclusion of the review process. All nominations and documentation provided to members electronically must be deleted. If the Secretariat staff requires a selection committee member's assistance to provide additional information on a particular case after the competition, the selection committee member will be provided with new copies of the relevant material.

• 2.2. Confidentiality of recommendations

  All funding recommendations are subject to approval by the TAP Steering Committee and may be changed for reasons of budget, administrative error or lack of full compliance to the federal granting agency policies.

  All matters discussed during selection committee meetings are confidential. Notifying candidates of the results of selection committee deliberations is the responsibility of the Secretariat, following the approval by the TAP Steering Committee.

  Discussions of all nominations are confidential and must not be divulged to others. Any release of information to a candidate must be done through the Secretariat.

  Results must not be disclosed by selection committee members prior to the Secretariat official release. If approached by a candidate and/or institution representatives concerning a decision or any other matter, selection committee members should decline discussion and refer the individual to the Secretariat. Secretariat staff will act as a liaison between the Vanier CGS selection committee and the candidate/institution.

• 2.3. The Privacy Act and Access to Information Act

  Canada's Privacy Act stipulates that personal information provided by candidates must be used only for the purpose of assessing nominations and making funding decisions. The use or disclosure of such information for any other purpose is illegal.

  The information collected for this purpose must be directly from the individual. It may be collected from other sources only as part of the formal review process.

  In view of the large number of nominations, selection committee members will not be required to provide written assessments of individual nominations.

  As per the Access to Information Act, candidates have a right to access information that is held by the Secretariat about their nomination/themselves. A written opinion of a reference about a nomination (for example, Referee assessment or Nomination Letter) is available to the nominee. However, they do not have the right to access the names of those who reviewed their nomination.

  A list of each agency-specific selection committee members will be published on the Vanier CGS website after funding decisions have been announced.

  It is important that selection committee members adhere strictly to the guidelines set out in the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy of the Federal Research Funding Organizations.

• 2.4. Gender-neutral and gender-inclusive language in reviews

  Reviewers are encouraged to adopt gender-neutral and gender-inclusive language in their reviews. In reviews, both written and spoken, gender-neutral and gender-inclusive language is more accurate and more respectful when discussing the science and the applicant.

  When discussing the science remember that gender is non-binary. When research is meant to include all people, avoid binary statements like "men and women." Instead, consider phrases like "men, women, and gender-diverse people" or "people of all genders." In addition, be mindful of word choice. Below are a few examples of words that could be replaced with more gender-neutral and gender-inclusive terms:

  • "Female/male anatomy" with specific anatomical language (e.g., ovaries, uterus, testes)
  • "Mankind" with "humankind" or "people"
  • "Man-made" with "machine-made", "synthetic" or "artificial"

  When referring to the applicant use gender neutral pronouns or phrases. For example, use "they" or "the applicant," rather than "he" or "she". Remain mindful of word choice, as some words could be replaced with more gender-neutral and gender-inclusive terms:

  • "Chairman" with "Chair" or "Chairperson"
  • "Maternal/paternal leave" with "parental leave"

• 2.5. Official Languages

  The federal granting agencies, like all other federal institutions, have a key role to play in the implementation of the Official Languages Act. The Secretariat has an obligation to ensure that:

  • any member of the public can communicate with and obtain services from the Secretariat in either official language; and
  • their work environments are conducive to the effective use of both official languages and accommodate the use of either official language by their employees

  The federal granting agencies must ensure that their committees and their staff are fully aware of their obligations and rights regarding official languages by providing documentation on official languages to employees and members and by including relevant guidelines in the instructions to selection committees.

  In accordance with their active offer of bilingual service to the public, the Secretariat will try to appoint as many experts as possible with the appropriate language capabilities to serve on selection committees.

  Selection committees must ensure that all nominations receive a full and detailed evaluation (subject to the guidelines regarding level of effort for lower quality nominations as noted above), regardless of the official language of presentation. On occasion, this may entail consultation with Secretariat staff to identify Vanier CGS selection committee members with adequate linguistic capability.

• 2.6. San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment

  The agencies are a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which "recognizes the need to improve the ways in which the outputs of scholarly research are evaluated". DORA recognizes that scholarly outputs include a broad range of contributions and impacts and are not limited to published journal articles.

  Reviewers are to assess productivity and progress broadly by taking into consideration:

  • a range of contributions (e.g., research publications, reports, books, guidelines, datasets, code, tools, training and mentorship, volunteerism, community engagement, standards, software and commercialized products) and impacts (e.g., influence on policy and practice, health outcomes, societal outcomes, and distinctions-based, meaningful and culturally safe health research), and
  • the context of the applicant (e.g., leave history, career stage, area(s) of research, experiential knowledge, diverse career paths, family responsibilities, pandemic impact) and how it may have affected their progress.

  Metrics such as number of publications and citations, and size/number of research grants should not be used in isolation to assess productivity. Reviewers should not use journal-based metrics (e.g., Journal Impact Factors) as surrogate measures of quality and impact of individual research publications. As stated in DORA, the "scientific content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published".

• 2.7. Ethical considerations

  Selection committee members play an important role in alerting staff to any concerns they may have with respect to the ethics of the research being proposed. Examples of problems include the following:

  • use of animals in experiments where the significance of the proposed research does not appear to justify either the use of animal subjects or the proposed experimental protocol;
  • inadequate sensitivity to the use of humans in experiments; and
  • inadequate training in the handling of hazardous chemicals or biological substances.

  If a selection committee member has any concerns with respect to ethical matters, these should be discussed immediately with Secretariat staff to determine if there is a means of resolving any apparent problems quickly or if the awarding of a scholarship should be delayed pending the resolution of the problem. The review of nominations should continue without being influenced by this issue.

• 2.8. Responsible Conduct of Research

  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 federal granting agencies expect the highest standard of integrity in the research they fund. The electronic submission of an application to the Secretariat commits the applicant to a number of principles, including compliance with the Tri-agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research.

  Should selection committee members identify what appears to be a lack of integrity, they should bring it to the attention of Secretariat staff at the earliest opportunity. The Secretariat will refer any allegations to the Secretariat for 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 committee's evaluation discussions, unless they impact the scientific quality of the application.

  A selection committee member may, during the review process, encounter possible misconduct situations (e.g., apparent misrepresentation of publications and/or data, plagiarism and other problems such as a lack of appropriate control/monitoring within the institution itself or undue restriction on the dissemination of research supported by federal funds). Selection committee members should alert Secretariat staff of these situations at the earliest opportunity.

  Selection and review process

  The Secretariat expects the highest standards of integrity in the review process that it manages. The Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research indicates that information provided by candidates for the purpose of selection and review cannot be used by reviewers without the author's permission. In addition, a reviewer should reveal to the federal granting agencies any material conflict of interest, financial or other, that might influence the Secretariat's decision on whether the reviewer should review nominations. Selection committee members are responsible for respecting the confidentiality of nomination material and for declaring material conflicts of interest. Should selection committee members become aware of a situation that violates the integrity of the review process, they should discuss this immediately with Secretariat staff.

• 2.9. Open Access Policy and Research Data Management Policy

  The federal granting agencies believes research results produced using public funds belong, to the fullest extent possible, in the public domain. Grant holders must comply with the tri-agency Open Access Policy on Publications, by ensuring that any peer-reviewed journal publications arising from the tri-agency funded research are freely accessible within 12 months of publication. Additionally, in accordance with the tri-agency Research Data Management Policy, the tri-agency expects grant holders to responsibly and securely manage their research data and, where ethical, legal and commercial obligations allow, make it available for reuse by others.

3. Roles and responsibilities

• 3.1. Selection committee

  3.1.1 Chair

  Selection committee chairs play an important oversight role on the committee. Each committee has one chair, it is the Chair's responsibility, in collaboration with the VBS staff, to ensure that the review committee functions smoothly, effectively and objectively, and that a positive, constructive, fair-minded environment in which nominations are evaluated is established and maintained.

  The chair will:

  • provide guidance to the Vanier-Banting Secretariat on the delivery of the program;
  • ensure the orderly and complete evaluation of nominations during the selection committee meeting;
  • ensure that, throughout the evaluation process, all important aspects of a nomination are considered in light of the selection criteria;
  • identify when a discussion has reached its saturation point, and when a discussion should be prompted to address a missing element. They effectively paraphrase main points heard, and move on to the next peer review step;
  • facilitate respectful discussion and information sharing around the nomination of the application. They intervene when disrespectful or irrelevant comments are made, making sure that the discussion stays focused on the evaluation criteria;
  • react appropriately in a timely manner to calmly defuse tension in a discussion, using effective interpersonal skills, such as encouraging positivity and flexibility, pivoting in a collegial manner, being a good listener and impartial and balanced;
  • promote productive engagement of committee members and ensure that everyone’s opinions are treated equally and with respect, limiting reviewers from monopolizing discussions and intervening when issues of fairness arise;
  • lead the committee's efforts to maintain the highest quality of evaluation and in accordance with the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and to ensure consistency and equity in the approach used during the meeting ;
  • ensure the transmission of recommendations to the Secretariat; and
  • represent the committee in dealings with the Secretariat on policy issues including submitting a report to the Secretariat following the meeting.

  The chair is not responsible for reviewing nominations.

  Note: The Secretariat asks that selection committee members not make formal recommendations for a future chair (i.e., no formal letters of recommendation are required). Instead, informal suggestions about potential chairs should be made to the Vanier CGS program administrator.

  3.1.2 Evaluators

  All evaluators are responsible for:

  • adhering to the Vanier CGS guidelines and regulations pertaining to the review of nominations, conflicts of interest, communications with candidates, and confidentiality;
  • participating in the committee discussions;
  • advising Vanier-Banting Secretariat staff on policy and procedural issues associated with the review of nominations;
  • advising and assisting the committee chair in the preparation of the committee report following the selection committee meeting;

  Each evaluator can be assigned one or more of the four roles listed below.

  3.1.2.1 Reviewers

  A primary or secondary reviewer is a committee member who:

  • is assigned to review one or more nominations; and
  • serves on the selection committee to which the nominations assigned to them were submitted for review.

  Primary and secondary reviewers are responsible for:

  • conducting a review of each of their assigned nominations based on the selection criteria;
  • pre-scoring Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships nominations;
  • submitting their pre-scores in a timely fashion to the Vanier-Banting Secretariat using ResearchNet; and
  • presenting and discussing nominations during committee deliberations.

  3.1.2.2 Third readers

  A third reader is a member who:

  • is assigned to review one or more nominations to be discussed at the meeting;
  • serves on the selection committee to which those nominations were submitted for review; and
  • has not already acted as the primary or secondary reviewer on those nominations.

  Third readers are responsible for:

  • conducting a review of each of their assigned nominations based on the selection criteria, paying particular attention to the third criterion;
  • pre-scoring Vanier CGS nominations prior to the selection committee meeting;
  • submitting their pre-scores in a timely fashion to the Vanier-Banting Secretariat; and
  • participating in the discussion and final outcomes of the assigned nominations during committee deliberations.

  3.1.2.3 Guest readers

  A guest reader is a selection committee member who:

  • is assigned to review a nomination from another Vanier CGS selection committee; and
  • has expertise in one or more of the principal research areas of the proposed research program

  Guest readers are responsible for:

  • conducting a review of each of their assigned nominations based on the selection criteria;
  • verbally presenting their assessment to the selection committee at the meeting; and
  • participating in the discussion (including final scoring and ranking) of nominations during committee deliberations.

  For more information, see 4.2.8 b) Identifying nominations for review by guest readers.

  3.1.2.4 Guest experts

  A guest expert is a selection committee member who:

  • is assigned to review a nomination proposing research respectfully involving Indigenous communities from another Vanier CGS selection committee (should the selection committee not already have a member with an expertise in Indigenous research); and
  • has expertise in Indigenous research.

  Note: Indigenous communities are broadly defined as individuals, groups, organizations, and populations who self-identify as Indigenous (First Nations, Inuk (Inuit) and or Métis) living and working anywhere in Canada.

  Guest experts are responsible for:

  • conducting a review of each of their assigned nominations based on the selection criteria, focusing on the Indigenous components of the nomination; and
  • providing input on the Indigenous components of the nomination during committee deliberations.

  For more information, see 4.2.8 c) Identifying nominations for guest experts.

  3.1.2.5 Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Champions

  EDI champions are selection committee members who:

  • ensure that EDI principle have been taken into consideration during the review process of applications, promote EDI awareness and EDI literacy within the committee, and reinforce a culture of considering EDI during the review process

  EDI champions are responsible for:

  • serving as a model for the appropriate consideration of EDI elements in the evaluation and presentation of reviews in order to exemplify best practices to the committee
  • ensuring that the committee is taking into consideration EDI principles in the review of all files that are discussed during the meeting as applicable.

  EDI is a collective responsibility of the committee as a whole and should be encouraged as a best practice for all reviewers.

• 3.2. Program administrator

  The main responsibilities of the Vanier CGS program administrator during the competition includes:

  • acting as a liaison and maintaining a good working relationship between the selection committee and the Vanier-Banting Secretariat (Secretariat);
  • advising the selection committee on the Secretariat's policies, guidelines and procedures and helping to ensure, on an ongoing basis, consistency in the review of all nominations;
  • supporting the selection committee in accordance with the San Franscisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA);
  • supporting the Chair in their role before, during and after the meeting by being available to answer questions, clarify processes and policies, providing essential information that is required for the selection committee review process.
  • serving as the "committee memory" to ensure consistency of approach from year to year;
  • bringing relevant documentation to the attention of the selection committee to aid in its deliberations, and assisting selection committee members in the use of the reference material provided by the Secretariat;
  • ensuring that recommendations are accurately recorded;
  • ensuring that recommended awards conform to the Secretariat's guidelines;
  • bringing any problems to the attention of the selection committee chair and/or the Vanier CGS program team lead, Deputy Director, VBS Lead, and/or Executive Director; and
  • recommending potential reviewers for future membership.

  The program administrators are not selection committee members and do not have voting rights on the selection committee.

• 3.3. Executive Director, Deputy Director, VBS Lead and Team Lead

  The main responsibilities of the Vanier CGS executive director, Deputy Director, VBS lead and team lead include:

  • monitoring the quality of review and the effectiveness of the program;
  • ruling on policy issues;
  • identifying and monitoring policy issues and providing advice to the program administrator on interpreting policies and rules; and
  • leading, along with the program administrator, the Vanier CGS selection committee's policy discussion.

4. The review process

The review process consists of the following stages, which are further described below:

• 4.1. Selection Criteria
• 4.2. Prior to each agency-specific selection committee meeting
  • 4.2.1. Briefing on the review process and calibration sessions
  • 4.2.2. Receipt and assignment of nominations
  • 4.2.3. Identification of conflicts of interest by selection committee members
  • 4.2.4. Completion of the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Self-identification Questionnaire
  • 4.2.5. Review and pre-scoring of nominations
  • 4.2.6. Preliminary ranking of nominations and assignment of third readers, guest readers, guest experts
  • 4.2.7 Determining nominations to be discussed at selection committee meeting
  • 4.2.8 Assignment of third readers and guest readers/experts
  • 4.2.9 Pre-scoring nominations (as third readers)
  • 4.2.10 Providing updated pre-score ranked list of applications
• 4.3. During each agency-specific selection committee meeting
  • 4.3.1. Review process during selection committee meeting
  • 4.3.2. Establishing funding recommendations
  • 4.3.3. Selection committee's policy discussion
• 4.4. Following each agency specific selection committee meeting
  • 4.4.1. Preparation and submission of the chair's report

The agencies have signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which recognizes that scholarly outputs are not limited to published journal articles but can include a broader range of outputs. Reviewers must assess productivity broadly (i.e., not just based on publications) and consider the applicant's context (e.g., career stage, leave history). Reviewers must consider:

• A range of contributions (e.g., research publications, patents, reports, posters, abstracts, monographs, presentations, creative outputs, books, guidelines, standards, software and commercialized products, article preprints, protocols, knowledge mobilization outputs, community outputs, etc.) and impacts (e.g., influence on policy and practice, societal outcomes, distinctions-based, meaningful and culturally safe research).
  • Consider individual workstyles, contributions, commitments, variations in disciplines, and community and cultural standards. Collaboration, teamwork and mentoring are important and valid contributions to research and to training highly qualified personnel.
    • The identity (e.g., sex, gender, race, disability, socio-economic status, etc.) of the applicant should not have an impact on how these contributions are valued.
    • Similar expectations apply to single-authored and multi-authored publications.
    • If applicable, consideration of the merit of non-academic contributions for research respectfully involving Indigenous Peoples must be taken into consideration.
• The context of the nominees (e.g., health problems, family responsibilities, disabilities, trauma and/or loss, pandemic impact, career stage, area(s) of research, experiential knowledge and diverse career paths) and how it may have impacted the applicant's performance (see range of contributions). Please see specific notes about research area and career stage:
  • Reviewers should consider the research area/discipline of the applicant when reviewing nominations, for example, publication productivity can vary when comparing researchers in different fields.
  • Reviewers should consider the career stage of the applicants to better assess and calibrate their set of applications, for example, direct entry to doctoral degree from bachelor’s vs. entry after completing a master’s degree. Reviewers are asked to think critically about whether the training position for which an individual is applying for funding will have the desired career benefits and impact compared to other applicants.

Metrics such as number of publications and citations, and size/number of research grants should not be used in isolation to assess productivity and progress. Reviewers should not use journal-based metrics (e.g., Journal Impact Factors) as surrogate measures of quality and impact of individual research publications. As stated in DORA, the "scientific content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published".

• 4.1. Selection Criteria

  Nominations are evaluated and selected based on the following three criteria, weighted equally:

  1. Academic Excellence
  2. Research Potential
  3. Leadership (Potential and Demonstrated Ability)

  When evaluating nominations, both the prestige of the Vanier CGS and the stage and nature of the candidate's academic career should be considered.

  The three federal granting councils are actively engaged in promoting equity and diversity, as well as in decreasing unconscious bias in their review processes. To this end, the Secretariat has curated a list of resources for selection committee members regarding equity, diversity and inclusion consideration.

  Criterion	Indicators	Sources
  Academic Excellence The candidate's academic history and their demonstrated excellence in academic achievement throughout the course of their scholarly career. Members should consider the entire academic record when assessing academic excellence. Members should favorably consider situations where an applicant has demonstrated an improving trend or provided an appropriate explanation for their academic record in the Special Circumstance document of the application	Academic records, such as: Transcripts Duration of previous studies Program requirements and courses pursued Course load Relative standing in program (if available)	Academic transcripts Academic Background section—Common CV Personal Leadership Statement Special Circumstance document
  	Institution's comments	Institutional Nomination letter
  	Scholarships and awards (competitiveness, amount, duration and prestige)	Common CV
  The three federal granting councils have signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which recognizes that scholarly outputs are not limited to published journal articles but can include a broader range of outputs. Reviewers must assess productivity broadly (i.e., not just based on publications) and consider the applicant's context (e.g., career stage, leave history). Reviewers must consider: It is important that the reviewer take into account the context of the applicant (e.g., leave history, career stage, area(s) of research, experiential knowledge, diverse career paths, family responsibilities, pandemic impact) and how it may have affected their progress/performance outlined under the Special Circumstance document.

  Criterion	Indicators	Sources
  Research potential Demonstrated by the candidate's research history, his/her interest indiscovery, the proposed research and its potential contribution to theadvancement of knowledge in the field, and any anticipated outcomes. Reviewers should consider the sphere of influence of candidates relative to others along the following continuum of expanding impact: Research program University Research community International research community Society at large Consideration should be given to the candidate's standards of research productivity, etc. for their level of experience/qualifications relative to their personal circumstances (applicant's stage of study, lived experience and knowledge systems).	Relevant training such as academic training and relevant work experience (co-op included), lived experience and traditional teaching	Work Experience section – Common CV Personal Leadership Statement Referee assessments Special Circumstances
  	Quality of contributions and extent to which they advance the field of research – contributions may include research publications, patents, reports, posters, abstracts, monographs, books, guidelines, datasets, code, tools, standards, software and commercialized products, protocols, knowledge mobilization outputs, creative outputs, community outputs, etc.	Research contributions Referee assessments Common CV
  	Quality of research Proposal (specific, focus, and feasibility of research question and objective(s), significance and expected contributions to research)	Research Proposal
  	Demonstration of sound judgment and ability to think critically 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 Enthusiasm for research, originality, initiative, autonomy, relevant community involvement and outreach Ability or potential to communicate theoretical, technical and/or scientific concepts clearly and logically in written and oral formats Research experience and achievements relative to expectations of someone with your academic experience	Personal Leadership Statement Referee Assessments Institutional Nomination letter Research Proposal
  Note Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis Plus (SGBA+): In assessing the quality of the applicant's research proposal, consideration of sex, gender and diversity in the research design must be considered, if applicable: rationale and methodology for including SGBA+ in the research (from its design to the analysis of research findings) are clearly described; should be evaluated in terms of scientific rigour and usefulness of the proposed research. The agencies have signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which recognizes that scholarly outputs are not limited to published journal articles but can include a broader range of outputs. Reviewers must assess productivity broadly (i.e., not just based on publications) and consider the applicant's context (e.g., career stage, leave history). Reviewers must consider: A range of contributions (e.g., research publications, patents, reports, posters, abstracts, monographs, presentations, creative outputs, books, guidelines, standards, software and commercialized products, article preprints, protocols, knowledge mobilization outputs, community outputs, etc.) and impacts (e.g., influence on policy and practice, societal outcomes, distinctions-based, meaningful and culturally safe research). Consider individual workstyles, contributions, commitments, variations in disciplines, and community and cultural standards. Collaboration, teamwork and mentoring are important and valid contributions to research and to training highly qualified personnel. The identity (e.g., sex, gender, race, disability, socio-economic status, etc.) of the applicant should not have an impact on how these contributions are valued. Similar expectations apply to single-authored and multi-authored publications. If applicable, consideration of the merit of non-academic contributions for research respectfully involving Indigenous Peoples must be taken into consideration. Metrics such as number of publications and citations, and size/number of research grants should not be used in isolation to assess productivity and progress. Reviewers should not use journal-based metrics (e.g., Journal Impact Factors) as surrogate measures of quality and impact of individual research publications. As stated in DORA, the "scientific content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published". Nominations involving Indigenous communities must be assessed by its academic merit as usual, with additional review on the Indigenous research component. In order to be funded, these applications must fulfill the pillars for respectful research engaging with Indigenous Peoples. See the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion page for more information.

  Criterion	Indicators	Sources
  Leadership (Potential and Demonstrated Ability) within and beyond academia: Given the prestige of the Vanier CGS program, this is an important criterion that has to be assessed in an indirect manner, since there is no opportunity for the selection committee to interview candidates. When assessing the leadership criterion, consider how the nominee has gone above and beyond the expected norms to overcome obstacles, foster others, spearhead change, or otherwise demonstrate Leadership. Weigh achievements according to the opportunities presented (lack of opportunities due to socio-economic status, culturally different academic settings for students with foreign academic backgrounds, etc.). Note: consider that for foreign candidates, these opportunities may not always present themselves due to culturally different academic settings.	Personal achievement Excellence in professional programs/association such as sports, arts, science, business etc. (look for impactful involvement; mere participation is not enough) Entrepreneurial achievement (start-up company, establishing an NGO or charitable initiative, establishing arts/sports-based festivals/competitions) Foreign study Ability to overcome personal obstacles and commit to research excellence despite numerous challenges (ex. socio-economic reasons, familial or parental responsibilities, trauma or loss, etc.)	Common CV Personal Leadership Statement Referee Letters Institutional nomination letters Two Leadership reference letters (elaborate on how the candidate has gone above and beyond the opportunities presented in order to achieve a goal, contribute to their community, or how they have taken on responsibility for others.) Special Circumstance document
  	Involvement in academic life mentoring/teaching; supervisory experience; involvement in student government and in the institution community, including committees, teams, senate, boards, ethics committees, etc.; project/lab management; roles in academic/professional societies; organization of conferences, meetings, courses, etc.
  	Volunteerism/community outreach involvement in charity or not-for-profit organizations.
  	Goal achievement a clear vision of what they want to accomplish; a developed personal vision for the future that defines an impactful/meaningful change for the community or a group, cause or organization; strategizes on how to achieve desired outcomes and has specific, realistic and timely goals.
  	Self-management knows how to prioritize and complete tasks to reach the desired outcome and is confident of success; establishes learning goals and tasks; reaches goals in an efficient, organized and innovative way; and is constantly working on self-improvement
  	Integrity acts consistently with core ethical and personal values and convictions; and accepts personal accountability for the consequences of their actions/decisions.
  	Other characteristics is creative and takes initiative; is curious; deals well with complexity; has a strong sense of reality; is courageous; is strategic, a big-picture thinker; focuses on solutions, not problems; is capable of producing extraordinary results; and is able to solve real problems and create real products.
  	Social skills knows how to develop positive relationships with a diverse range of people; cares about and listens to what others say and gives feedback; knows how to motivate individuals; is persuasive; is supportive of peers; is able to negotiate; is viewed as trustworthy, ethical and dependable; is well-respected; and displays mastery of presentation skills and public communications.
  Notes: The evaluation on this criterion should be based on the institutional nomination letter, the referee assessment letters and the leadership reference letters: Look for well-rounded individuals that are above and beyond the expected norms. Also take into consideration the opportunities presented (lack of opportunities due to socio-economic status, culturally different academic settings for students with foreign academic backgrounds, etc.) to nominee. When evaluating this criterion, reference the instructions provided to candidates. More information on leadership is available in the SSHRC-funded study, Leadership at the Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Levels [ PDF (260 KB) ] This list is not intended to include all possible categories and is provided for guidance only.

• 4.2. Prior to the selection committee meeting

  • 4.2.1. Briefing on the selection process and calibration sessions

    These sessions are organized to provide an overview of the Vanier CGS program's review process and selection criteria. To ensure that all selection committee members assess nominations in a similar fashion, the main focus of these teleconferences is to hold a calibration session(s).

    More information on the agencies briefing and calibration sessions is sent by email prior to the teleconferences.

  • 4.2.2. Receiving and assigning nominations

    Nominations are received by the Secretariat through ResearchNet and the program administrator assigns them to committee members for review.

    The Vanier CGS agency-specific selection committees are multidisciplinary. Therefore, selection committee members are asked to review nominations in a number of different disciplines related to the federal granting agency's mandate, including nominations in disciplines that may not correspond to the members' area of expertise. We ask that you assess the intellectual challenge of the research in which the candidate will be involved. Although you may not be familiar with the field, we ask that each reviewer complete their reviews from a generalist's perspective. Each nomination is reviewed by two selection committee members: one serves as the primary reviewer and the other as the secondary reviewer.

    Once nominations have been received by the Secretariat, they are assigned to selection committee members using ResearchNet - the electronic web portal used for review of nominations. In doing so, the Secretariat staff will seek to balance workload among committee members, while also taking into consideration members' language capabilities and areas of expertise, as well as potential conflicts of interest between members and nominations. Each selection committee member is responsible for their reviewer assignments.

    As soon as nominations are assigned, each committee member will be granted access to ResearchNet to review their Vanier CGS assignments. Members will receive an email notification advising them that their assignments are available.

  • 4.2.3. Identification of conflicts of interest by selection committee members

    Selection committee members identify additional conflicts of interest with those applications to which they were assigned.

    • Review the Federal Research Funding Organizations Policy on Conflict of Interest.

    Using ResearchNet, selection committee members are asked to identify any conflicts of interest with nominations they have been assigned. A list of conflicts is provided below. Since this list is not exhaustive, reviewers should consult the Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Guidelines that appear as the first mandatory task in ResearchNet. Should a selection committee member feel, for any reason, that they are unable to review an assigned nomination, the selection committee member should contact the program administrator immediately, and a new reviewer will be re-assigned to the nomination as appropriate.

    Are you in conflict of interest with the candidate?

    The following guidelines governing conflicts of interest apply to the evaluation of Vanier CGS nominations. Guidelines of this nature cannot foresee all possible situations; the federal granting agencies rely on the judgment of committee members in identifying conflicts. A member may not act as a reviewer for an application if:

    • the committee member is affiliated with the nominating institution proposed by the candidate; or
    • the candidate is currently in the same department as the committee member; or
    • the candidate is, has been, or will be under the direct or co-supervision of the committee member; or
    • the candidate has or has had a personal or professional relationship with the committee member;
    • feel for any reason unable to provide an impartial review of the nomination.

    When a committee member is in conflict with a particular application, the member will be asked to leave the room during the selection committee meeting before the deliberations on that application begin.

    It is the responsibility of committee members to declare any conflicts of interest prior to the review of an application. In cases where the guidelines do not clearly describe a situation, or where the committee or chair has difficulties making a decision about a particular situation, Vanier-Banting Secretariat staff has the responsibility to rule.

  • 4.2.4. Completion of the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Self-identification Questionnaire

    Selection committee members must complete the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Self-identification Questionnaire in ResearchNet before accessing their assigned applications. For more information about the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Self-identification Questionnaire, please refer to the Frequently Asked Questions and How-To Instructions on the CIHR website.

  • 4.2.5. Review and pre-scoring of nominations

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

    Using ResearchNet, reviewers are to pre-score all nominations assigned to them and are to submit their pre-scores electronically to the Secretariat prior to the selection committee meeting. A specific deadline date will be communicated to committee members in due course.

    The review process is, by nature, subjective. Bias may manifest itself in any number of ways and could be based on one or more of the following factors, among others:

    • school of thought
    • fundamental versus applied or translational research
    • areas of research or approaches (including emerging ones)
    • types of research contributions
    • size or reputation of a participating institution
    • cultural background
    • age
    • race
    • religion
    • language
    • gender
    • disability
    • sexual orientation

    Reviewers are cautioned against using any inappropriate judgement of nominations based on such factors and are asked to constantly guard against the possibility of implicit bias influencing the decision-making process.

    Can we improve equity and reduce bias in the review process?

    The three federal granting councils are actively engaged in promoting equity and diversity, as well as in decreasing unconscious bias in their review processes. To this end, the Secretariat has curated a list of resources for reviewers regarding equity, diversity, and inclusion considerations. All members must review the material, including the unconscious bias training module.

    Considerations for reviewing nominations in which the proposed research respectfully involves and engages Indigenous communities

    Nominees whose proposed research respectfully involves and engages Indigenous communities are to include "This research involves and engages Indigenous communities" at the beginning of their lay abstract. The program administrator for each selection committee (CIHR, NSERC, SSHRC) will endeavour to ensure that the primary or secondary reviewer on these nominations has expertise in Indigenous research.

    Primary and secondary reviewers are asked to identify any nominations whose research respectfully involves and engages Indigenous communities and that are not identified as such in the lay abstract. This will ensure that nominations whose research respectfully involves and engages Indigenous communities receive due attention.

    All committee members assigned to these nominations (primary reviewer, secondary reviewer and, if applicable, the third reader and guest reader/expert) are expected to consult and take into consideration the guidelines outlined for reviewing nominations involving Indigenous research. These guidelines, along with other important considerations, are available through the new Equity, Diversity and Inclusion page.

    Specifically the following two documents will provide guidance on the review of these applications:

    • Tri-Council Policy Statement - TCPS 2 (2022): Chapter 9: Research Involving the First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples of Canada
      • From Article 9.1 provides examples of conditions under which community engagement is required
        • research conducted on First Nations, Inuk (Inuit) or Métis lands;
        • recruitment criteria that include Indigenous identity as a factor in the research
        • research that seeks input from participants regarding a community's cultural heritage, artefacts, traditional knowledge or unique characteristics;
        • research in which Indigenous identity or membership in an Indigenous community is used as a variable for the purpose of analysis of the research data; and
        • interpretation of research results that will refer to Indigenous communities, peoples, language, history or culture.

    • SSHRC Guidelines for the Merit Review of Indigenous Research

      The following key concepts from SSHRC's guidelines should be evident in research proposal (as applicable) and should be substantiated within the Institution Nomination letter:

      • Indigenous or traditional knowledge
      • Reciprocity
      • Community
      • Respect, relevance and contribution

    The research proposal should reflect that the applicant and the host institution are aware of and referring to relevant principles and protocols established for this kind of research. There should be evidence of engagement with the community in a meaningful and culturally safe manner.

    Is the application eligible for support?

    The Secretariat is responsible for screening all nominations against eligibility requirements to ensure that the candidate is eligible to apply to the Vanier CGS program. Selection committee members are invited to bring any concerns or questions regarding the eligibility of a candidate to the attention of the Secretariat staff, but should proceed with the review of the nomination while the situation is assessed. The eligibility concerns should only be raised to the program staff and not be raised during discussion of the nominations.

    Is the proposed research contrary to the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research?

    If a committee member suspects that the candidate's proposed research is contrary to the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research or if the member has any ethical concerns with respect to the nomination, they should inform the Secretariat of their concerns as soon as possible and proceed with evaluating the nomination while the situation is being assessed. The ethical concerns should only be raised to the program staff and not be raised during discussion of the nominations.

    Pre-scoring

    Selection committee members are expected to give a pre-score (i.e., a score that is given before the selection committee meeting and that may or not coincide with the final score) between 0.1 and 9.0 (in increments of 0.1, with 9.0 being the highest and 0.1 being lowest) to their assigned nominations for each of the three criteria. ResearchNet will automatically calculate the nominations overall score by averaging the score assigned to each criterion.

    To encourage selection committee members to differentiate between highly promising candidates and to ensure that the full range of the scale is used, a forced binning system has been implemented. The binning is done on the overall score and not on each criterion. Members must ensure that their assigned nominations fall within each of the three bins identified in the table below, distributing the nomination according to the proportion indicated, and allocating the remaining 25% as they deem appropriate to compensate for a relatively strong or a relatively weak subset of nominations:

    Funding recommendation	Score	Proportion
    Recommended	6.1 – 9.0	25%
    Could be recommended	3.1 – 6.0	25%
    Not recommended	0.1 – 3.0	25%

    Reminder: In addition, within the top bin, members must assign a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2 applications between 8.0 and 9.0.

    Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review a number of nominations before entering scores in order to establish a frame of reference for selection committee members to score all of their assigned nominations. An electronic worksheet will be provided to members to assist with the task of scoring and binning.

    In order for this system to work effectively, it is essential that the entire range within a bin be used. Therefore, reviewers should make every effort to distinguish between nominations within a given bin to avoid ties. For example, if 3 nominations are placed within the top bin then one should be ranked highest and one lowest with the remaining nomination ranked in between, if appropriate.

    As nomination volumes for this program are difficult to predict, reviewers are encouraged to scale the level of effort for reviews of lower quality nominations to the number of nominations assigned (i.e., the higher the nomination volume, the lower the time spent on nominations deemed to be in the "not recommended" range). Depending on the nomination volume received, variations on the forced binning system and/or triage of lower quality nominations may be implemented.

    Note: Selection committee members are required to bring their personal notes on their assigned nominations to the selection committee meeting. All notes will be securely destroyed after the selection committee meeting.

    Reviewer pre-scores must be submitted electronically to the Vanier-Banting Secretariat via ResearchNet prior to the selection committee meeting. The exact submission deadline will be confirmed by the program administrator. It is critical that this deadline be respected, as Secretariat staff cannot determine which applications will be reviewed at the selection committee meeting or which applications will require a third reader until all of these pre-scores have been received. Members are encouraged to contact Secretariat staff at any time if they need assistance during the pre-scoring process.

    Reminder: Committee members who have been assigned nominations in which the proposed research involves and engages Indigenous communities are required to consult and take into consideration the guidelines outlined for reviewing nominations involving this type of research. These guidelines, along with other important considerations, are available through the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion page. Members are expected to read the material before they begin the pre-scoring process.

  • 4.2.6. Preliminary ranking of nominations

    Once all the primary and secondary reviewers' pre-scores have been received, the Secretariat staff will calculate the average of the two reviewers' overall scores and rank the nominations from the highest to the lowest rated. The pre-score ranking of all nominations will be made available to selection committee members prior to the selection committee meeting.

  • 4.2.7 Determining nominations to be discussed at selection committee meeting

    The program administrator identifies nominations where there is a discrepancy of 3.0 or more points between the primary and secondary reviewers' pre-scores and where one of those pre-scores greater than or equal to the overall score of the 55th-ranked candidate or in the case of the selection committee awarding the 166th scholarship the 56th ranked nomination (the exact number of "discrepant" applications will depend on the number of discrepancies). The program administrator then provides the selection committee with a preliminary ranked list of all the nominations, identifying those that will be discussed at the meeting, namely:

    • Nomination ranked from 31-70;
    • All discrepant nominations (as defined above); and
    • Each reviewers’ top 2 ordinally ranked applications (if not already included)

    Upon receiving this list, committee members are asked to promptly identify any of the following:

    • additional nominations that they feel should also be discussed at the meeting and reviewed by a third reader;
    • nominations that they feel should also be reviewed by a guest reader; and/or
    • nominations that they feel should also be reviewed by a guest expert.

  • 4.2.8 Assignment of third readers and guest readers/experts

    The program administrator will assign a third reader to review the following set of nominations:

    • all discrepant nominations;
    • any additional nominations that have been flagged by reviewers;
    • the nomination ranked on the funding cut-off line (i.e., the 55th-ranked nomination or, in the case of the selection committee awarding the 166th scholarship, the 56th-ranked nomination);
    • the five nominations ranked immediately inside the funding cut-off line (i.e., those ranked 50 to 54 inclusively or, in the case of the selection committee awarding the 166th scholarship, those ranked 51 to 55 inclusively); and
    • the five nominations ranked immediately outside the funding cut-off line (i.e., those ranked 56 to 60 inclusively or, in the case of the selection committee awarding the 166th scholarship, those ranked 57 to 61 inclusively).
    • Any remaining nominations not previously identified that are in the top two ordinal ranking of each selection committee member.

    b) Identifying nominations for review by guest readers

    On occasion, a research proposal spans the mandate boundaries of more than one selection committee (CIHR, NSERC, SSHRC). If expertise from another committee would be beneficial, a nomination can be flagged by the primary and/or secondary reviewer for evaluation by a guest reader serving on one of the other selection committees.

    The program administrator will assign a guest reader to review these flagged nominations.

    c) Identifying nominations for guest experts

    In the event that a selection committee requires additional expertise in Indigenous research, the program administrator assigned to that committee will assign a guest expert to any nomination whose research respectfully involves and engages Indigenous communities.

    d) Declaring conflicts of interest

    Third readers, guest readers and guest experts must contact the Secretariat's program administrator to identify any conflicts of interest with the nominations assigned to them.

  • 4.2.9 Pre-scoring nominations (as third readers)

    The third reader is responsible for reviewing and pre-scoring their assigned nominations. This evaluation should be based on the same three criteria, the same scoring system (i.e., minding the scale; comparing nominations against those they evaluated as a primary or secondary reviewer), and the same guidelines outlined above for the primary and secondary reviewers.

    Third readers must contact the Secretariat's program administrator to identify any conflicts of interest with the nominations assigned to them.

    Third readers are to submit their pre-scores electronically to the program administrator, respecting the deadline provided. (The exact deadline will be confirmed by the program administrator.)

    Pre-scores provided by the readers are not calculated into the overall scores of the nominations. Rather, these pre-scores represent additional feedback to help inform discussion during the meeting. Readers are expected to be ready during committee deliberations to provide comments on the application's strengths and weaknesses.

  • 4.2.10 Providing updated pre-score ranked list of nominations

    Prior to the selection committee meeting, the Secretariat's program administrator prepares an updated pre-score ranked list of nominations—including pre-scores by the primary and secondary reviewers and, where applicable, by the third reader—and makes the list available to the selection committee members. This list of nominations that will be discussed at the selection committee meeting will consist of:

    • the nominations ranked from 31–70 (40 nominations).
    • any additional nominations that were assigned to a third reader.

    No other nominations are expected to be discussed at the meeting.

• 4.3. During the selection committee meeting

  4.3.1. Review process during the selection committee meeting

  Note: The committee is encouraged to use gender-neutral and gender-inclusive language when presenting reviews and engaging in discussions.

  Note: Members are required to bring to the meeting their notes on nominations assigned to them. All notes must be securely destroyed after the meeting.

  Selection committee members meet for the Vanier CGS selection committee meeting. The dates of the meeting are provided in due course by the Secretariat's program administrator.

  At the selection committee meeting, the following nominations are reviewed one at a time, in rank order, from highest to lowest:

  • nominations ranked 31–70,
  • discrepancies of 3.0 or higher,
  • any additional nominations that were identified by selection committee members.

  The total number of nominations to be discussed will depend on the number of discrepancies and the number of additional nominations flagged by reviewers.

  The procedure for reviewing a nomination during the meeting will consist of the following steps:

  1. The primary reviewer introduces the nomination briefly by describing the research topic, career stage/path and any special circumstances indicated. The reviewers will then verbally summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the nomination by addressing each criterion in turn, along with points raised in the two referee assessments. This summary should take between two and three minutes.
  2. The secondary reviewer will provide comments to highlight agreement or discrepancies with the primary reviewer's analysis. These comments should take between one and two minutes.
  3. The third reader, if applicable, will then add any additional information that they feel is required by the selection committee in order to assess the nomination. These additional details should take approximately one minute.
  4. The guest reader, if applicable, then adds any other information that they feel is required by the committee in order to assess the nomination. These additional details should take approximately two minutes.
  5. The guest expert, if applicable, then adds any other information that they feel is required by the committee in order to assess the nomination, focusing on the Indigenous components of the nomination.
  6. If applicable and otherwise omitted from discussion, EDI champions raise relevant equity, diversity, and inclusion considerations for the assessment of the file (such as a candidate's research trajectory, opportunities or lack thereof and/or obstacles; personal circumstances that may have affected the record of research achievement or productivity of a candidate; the diversity in perspective and lived experiences; how Sex and Gender Based Analysis Plus (SGBA+) is considered in the research's design, methods, analysis and interpretation, and/or dissemination of findings).
  7. Other committee members may make comments or raise questions in order to clarify information presented by the reviewers, reader, and/or guest experts, which may lead into committee discussion. Members must ensure that the career stage/path of the nominee and any special circumstances/unusual types of research contributions have been considered in the assessment of their track record.
  8. The selection committee will come to a consensus on the nomination's final score, taking into consideration the feedback provided by the primary and secondary reviewers as well as the third reader and any guest expert/reader. The selection committee is expected to decide on a consensus score for each of the three selection criteria and that these will then be averaged to arrive at a final score for the nomination. Note: For a nomination to be considered eligible for funding, it must attain an average score of at least 3.1 in each of the three criteria.
  9. Once all applications have been discussed and scored, the ranking of the nominations is reviewed to determine a quality cut-off line for funding (below which nominations are deemed to be not strong enough to receive funding in the eventuality that funds become available) and to resolve any ties in scores between the 55th-ranked application – or in the case of the selection committee offering the 166th scholarship, the 56th-ranked nomination – and nominations at the quality cut-off line.

  Following the competition, the committee's final rating on each criterion for an individual nomination will be made available to the nominee. This constitutes feedback to the nominee on the relative strengths and weaknesses of their nomination and on the nomination's relative ranking. Committee members will not submit written comments on individual nominations.

  The final ranked list of all nominations will be submitted to the tri-agency Programs Steering Committee for approval.

  Any comments related to the review of nominations during the selection committee meeting should be brought to the attention of Secretariat staff.

  4.3.2. Establishing funding recommendations

  Selection committee members are invited to comment on the list. More particularly:

  • each federal granting agency awards up to 55 awards, while an additional award is offered annually by either CIHR or NSERC; selection committee members ensure that the candidates ranked between 53 and 70 are in the correct order.
  • the Secretariat staff will use this order to offer a Vanier CGS to the "next in line" resulting from declined awards.
  • selection committee members identify a quality line, which results in a ranked list of alternate candidates whose nomination packages are forwarded to TAP Steering Committee as "recommended for funding" should it become available. Candidates below this line would not be recommended to receive a Vanier CGS.
  • ties are resolved for alternate candidates only. Tie-breaking procedures are as follows:
    • where two nominations have the same overall score but have different discrepancies, the nomination with the smallest discrepancy will be ranked first, as the small discrepancy shows consensus among reviewers regarding the relative merit.
    • in the event that this does not break the tie, the nomination with the higher leadership score should be ranked first, as this criterion is unique to the Vanier CGS program.
    • should a tie remain after these two methods have been employed, a committee-wide discussion will take place, and the tie-break will be based on committee consensus.

  Each agency-specific Vanier CGS selection committee will forward a final ranked list to the TAP steering committee for final approval.

  4.3.3. Discussing policy

  At the end of the Vanier CGS selection committee meeting, once the committee has made its recommendations, selection committee members are asked to participate in a policy discussion. The discussion generally includes commenting on the quality of the nominations reviewed, suggesting improvements to the review process, identifying future selection committee membership needs, addressing competition and providing feedback on the program's administration.

• 4.4. After the selection committee meeting

  4.4.1. Preparation and submission of the chair's report

  Following the meeting and in consultation with committee members and Secretariat staff, the chair prepares and submits their report.

  This report serves to communicate the committee's comments and recommendations for improvements to the competition process and program policies.

  In addition to the final ranked list of all nominations, the report should include relevant comments on such matters as:

  • the review procedures followed by the committee
  • specific difficulties encountered in assessing nominations
  • recommendations for policy revisions
  • suggestions for information to be submitted by nominees (nomination materials)
  • evaluation criteria
  • suggestions for modifications to the electronic application process
  • suggestions for membership.

  The report is presented to the TAP Management Committee.

5. Selection committee membership

• 5.1. Recruitment process

  The federal granting agencies regularly solicit nominations for membership on their selection committees from institutions, industry and/or the government sector. Nominations are also put forward by current and previous selection committee members or by the Secretariat staff.

  The membership slate for each selection committee is prepared by the Secretariat staff and is subject to final approval by the Deputy Director of the Secretariat. Chosen in a similar way, the selection committee chair is a member who has already served on a selection committee for one or more competitions.

• 5.2. Selection committee member criteria

  The most important criterion governing selection committee membership is academic and research excellence. The value of the review process rests on the credibility of the selection committee members and their recognized expertise and productivity in their field(s). Although each selection committee is representative of the community it serves, selection committee members themselves are not expected to act as representatives of any particular group, institution, region or country. Selection committees are structured to ensure:

  • participation from a broad range of Canadian institutions/organizations, including small institutions and by established scholars who are experts in their field(s);
  • appropriate representation on the basis of areas of expertise, language and gender;
  • appropriate understanding of the research environment in Canada;
  • appropriate competence in both official languages; and
  • adequate international representation and/or experience.

• 5.3. Term of membership

  The renewal of membership is essential to ensure the vitality of the selection committee process. Rotation of membership allows for broader representation of institutions and complementary expertise.

  Committee core membership will be recruited for a specific term of service (typically 3 years). To maintain stability in membership, while providing a mechanism for membership renewal, a rotational system has been established for one third of the membership on a yearly basis. The extension of a term beyond three years for one additional year may be accepted in exceptional circumstances. Experienced selection committee members may be appointed as chairs.

  These membership terms also address the benefits of renewing the membership so that new perspectives are continually incorporated into the peer review process.