Considerations for CIHR’s New Open Program

1. Considerations for CIHR’s New Open Program

2. The Context Top Down Strategy Strategic Reform Reform to the Peer Review System • The objective of the “top down” strategy is to targeted to specific areas of health research and knowledge translation. Programs and initiatives are intended to: • Focus on gaps in specific research areas and research communities or • Leverage existing strengths for impact Full spectrum of CIHR mandate The overall objective of CIHR’s open suite of programs is to contribute to a sustainable foundation ofexcellence for the Canadian Health Research Enterprise, by supporting world-class researchers in the conduct of research and knowledge translation across the spectrum of health. Bottom up Strategy Reform of Open Suite of Programs 2

3. The Context Future….. Today….. • Existing open programs include: • OOGP (including RCTs) • New Investigators program • PHSI • KT Synthesis • Knowledge to Action • Science to Business • POP • MPDs • CHRP • IPCR • Masters • Doctoral • Postdoctoral Fellowships Stable Open Suite: Project Scheme Indirectly Funded Training Program Scheme Direct Training Scheme Annual budget of~$530M Annual budget of~$530M 3

4. Objectives • The objective of the Open reform is to design a core suite of programs that: • capture excellence across all pillars • capture innovative/breakthrough research • improve sustainability of the long-term research enterprise • integrate new talent Any program design/change and implementation must take into consideration impacts on: • peer review burden • applicant burden • program complexity • cost-effectiveness and efficiency • stability (regular and predictable competitions, stable program designs) 4

5. The Context Feedback received from stakeholders, IRP recommendations and observations, and CIHR’s own analysis have identified some key challenges that need to be address by the design: CIHR Roadmap Applicant Burden/”Churn” Partnerships not Fully Valued (integrated KT) Institutes and their communities Program Complexity/Too many Boutique Programs Expertise Availability University Delegates Surveys and Petitions International Review Panel Reliability/Consistency of Reviews Application process/ Attributes not capturing the correct information Toronto Forum Chairs and Scientific Officers Peer Reviewer Workload Sufficient Support for New Investigators Conservative Nature of Peer Review / Support for High Risk Projects Committee Proliferation 5

6. Design Considerations Current Challenge Possibilities being considered to address this challenge… Applicant Burden/”Churn” • Multi-phased application process with short phase 1 applications – reduces amount of work required to complete an application • Longer term funding for programs of research - reduces the need to apply as frequently Program Complexity /Too many Boutique Programs • A limited number of funding schemes with clear and measureable objectives – increases applicants understanding of what CIHR is trying to achieve through its programming • OOGP and a number of existing boutique programs merged into a new set of funding schemes – reduces the number of programs. • Clearly communicated application requirements supported by applicant self-screening tools – increases applicants awareness of how applications will be assessed Application process/ Attributes not capturing the correct information • Structured application process – facilitates capturing the necessary information to review and assess different types of programs and projects 6

7. Design Considerations Current Challenge Possibilities being considered to address this challenge… Sufficient Support for New Investigators • Specific incentives for new investigators – provides mechanisms to ensure that new investigators are supported by the new funding schemes • Dedicated funding for novel, innovative and high risk research projects • Anonymous phase 1 applications for project scheme – reduces bias in the review process • Researcher and knowledge user specialists, generalists and citizen reviewers to be involved in the review process – brings different perspectives to the review Conservative Nature of Peer Review / Support for High Risk Projects Partnerships not Fully Valued (integrated KT) • Funding schemes will encourage and in some cases require partners and collaborators in the application process – mainstreams integrated knowledge translation into CIHR programming 7

8. Design Considerations Current Challenge Possibilities being considered to address this challenge… Reliability/ Consistency of Reviews • Development of a reviewer training program – sets expectations about how reviews should be conducted and improves consistency of reviews • Structured reviews and review criteria - improves consistency and transparency Peer Reviewer Workload • Introduction of virtual review process – provides reviewers with more flexibility to complete reviews • Multi-phased review process with shorter phase 1 applications – allows for the screening of applications and reduces the amount of time it takes to review an application • Introduction of structured review – reduces/eliminates requirement for extensive reviewer notes Committee Proliferation • An application-centric review process - ensures that the “right” combination of experts (specialists and generalists) are brought together to review a specific application. • Virtual review process – eliminates the reliance on a set of specific standing committees 8

9. Design Considerations Current Challenge Possibilities being considered to address this challenge… Expertise Availability • Establishment of a College of Reviewers – facilitates ready access to trained reviewers • Application centric review process with an emphasis on multiple dimensions – ensures that the “right” combination of experts (specialists and generalists) are brought together to review a specific application. There are a number of dimensions that can be considered to “match” applications to reviewers. Which dimensions are most important for review has yet to be determined…… 9