Compare to the live page

Overview

The CIHR Reviewer in Training (RiT) Program runs twice a year during the Spring and Fall

Project Grant Competitions

. It offers

Early Career Researchers

(ECRs) a learning opportunity to gain a better understanding of the elements of high-quality review and the peer review process.

RiT applicants can select either the role of a

Mentee

or

ECR Reviewer

.

ECRs that want to gain exposure to CIHR's peer review process with the guidance of a Mentor can apply to the

Mentee

role.

ECRs who hold federal (or equivalent) funding and want to gain direct peer review experience can apply to the

ECR Reviewer

role.

Eligibility

All Mentee Applicants:

(if known);

A PDF of your

CIHR Biosketch CV

to be completed using the

Canadian Common CV interface

(draft CCVs are not accepted);

A letter

from a

CIHR eligible institution

attesting:

that you meet CIHR's definition of

Early Career Researcher

;

that you hold an independent research-related appointment at the institution (letter must include institution name, your position title and start date); and

A ranked list of up to two

peer review committees

– for which you have the appropriate expertise to review and in which you would be comfortable participating.

Tips for Institution Letters

Letters of support must be recent, and repurposed letters such as job offer letters are not accepted. Letters should be dated and written on Institution letterhead. They should include the Institution's name, the applicant's position title with start date, and the signature block with contact details for the attester.

Example:

I am pleased to write this letter confirming that Dr. Lee meets the eligibility criteria to be considered for the CIHR Reviewer in Training Program. Dr. Lee meets CIHR's definition of an Early Career Researcher, being within five years of their first independent academic appointment which allows them to engage in independent research activities, supervise trainees, and publish research results.

Dr. Lee currently holds the position of Assistant Professor, Department of Biology at the University of Toronto with an appointment start date of September 1, 2025.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Resources

Mentee Guide

The College of Reviewers has developed a detailed

Mentee Guide

to help facilitate the mentorship process during the RiT Program. This guide is accessible online and will also be shared with Mentees prior to the committee meeting.

Mentee Information Session

Participating Mentees will be invited to attend a virtual information webinar that provides an overview of the program and what to expect in the role as Mentee. Further information will be communicated as Mentees are confirmed.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does CIHR select RiT Mentees?

Up to two RiT Mentee applicants are selected per

Project Grant Program committee

. Mentees are selected via lottery process for each of the peer review committees that were chosen during the time of application.

Who will be assigned as my Mentor, and what does the mentorship entail?

RiT Mentors tend to be Chairs and Scientific Officers of the committee due to their considerable experience in peer review, and to avoid conflict or bias. If this is not possible, an experienced reviewer may be asked to take on the role of Mentor. The Mentor will provide guidance on what the peer review process entails and can answer questions about review quality (i.e. addressing the criterion of appropriateness, robustness, and utility) for the Mentee's practice reviews. Please note that scientific opinions and/or the merit of an application should not be the focus of the discussion.

How do Mentees participate at the committee meeting?

Mentees should expect to present one of their practice reviews during the committee meeting and share an initial score at the same time as other assigned reviewers. For the remaining assigned applications, Mentees can participate in general committee discussion but will not present their review.

Each application is assigned to a minimum of two to three reviewers. In general, the sequence of steps for the review of an application begins with the assigned reviewers and assigned Mentee announcing their initial ratings. If an application is not streamlined, the committee discussion proceeds.

The primary reviewer leads with a brief synopsis (~2-5 minutes) of the proposal and their assessment, describing the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. Next, up two secondary reviewers will contribute points of agreement or disagreement with the other reviewers and elaborate on any points not already addressed. The Mentee will present between the two secondary reviewers. The Chair will then open the discussion to all committee members, followed by consensus ratings, final scores, budget and term discussions.

Mentees will be able to observe the discussions of consensus ratings, budget, and final scores for all applications, however, they are not permitted to participate in these aspects of the adjudication. Mentees are given access to all other applications in ResearchNet and are encouraged to actively participate in general discussion of all applications during the meeting. Additional information on how Peer Review Committee meetings unfold can be found in the

Project Grant Program: Review Process

.

How will Mentees know which application they will present?

CIHR staff will notify Mentees in advance which application they will present at the meeting. Usually this is a few days in advance, however, it may not be until the day of the meeting as is dependent on receiving reviews and scores of all applications prior to the meeting. It is therefore recommended that Mentees take the time to prepare themselves to be ready to present each of their reviews.

Will applicants be able to see the practice reviews written by RiT Mentees?

No, applicants will not receive Mentee practice reviews. Only the Mentor and CIHR Staff will have access to practice reviews. Please note that comments made by the Mentee during discussion may be captured in the Scientific Officer Notes and RiT Mentees must abide by

Standards of Practice for Peer Review

at all times.

Information for ECR Reviewer Applicants

Program Overview

Participants will receive an allowance of $50 per day to cover out-of-pocket expenses incurred while participating in these meetings.

All ECR-Reviewer Applicants:

;

that you hold an independent research-related appointment at the institution (letter must include institution name, your position title and start date); and

A ranked list of up to two

peer review committees

– for which you have the appropriate expertise to review and in which you would be comfortable participating.

Tips for Institution Letters

Letters of support must be recent, and repurposed letters such as job offer letters are not accepted. Letters should be dated and written on Institution letterhead. They should include the Institution's name, the applicant's position title with start date, and the signature block with contact details for the attester.

Example:

I am pleased to write this letter confirming that Dr. Lee meets the eligibility criteria to be considered for the CIHR Reviewer in Training Program. Dr. Lee meets CIHR's definition of an Early Career Researcher, being within five years of their first independent academic appointment which allows them to engage in independent research activities, supervise trainees, and publish research results.

Dr. Lee currently holds the position of Assistant Professor, Department of Biology at the University of Toronto with an appointment start date of September 1, 2025.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Resources

Frequently Asked Questions

How does CIHR select ECR-Reviewers?

At least one ECR-Reviewer will be selected per

Project Grant Program committee

based on the expertise and eligibility of the applicants. Additional ECR-Reviewers may also be invited if their expertise aligns with the reviewing needs of the committee.

How do ECR-Reviewers participate at the committee meeting?

ECR-Reviewers participate in the same capacity as other committee members, including consensus ratings, budget discussions, and providing final scores on the applications. They have a reduced number of applications to review (up to five) and are able to present their assigned applications later in the meeting. ECR-Reviewers also have access to all applications in ResearchNet and are encouraged to actively participate in all aspects of discussion for applications, not just those they were assigned to review.

How are applications presented during the meeting, and what can I expect in presenting my application?

Each application is assigned to a minimum of two to three reviewers that participate in the rating of applications and submit an in-depth written report that is provided to the applicant. As a courtesy, applications that include an ECR-Reviewer as one of the reviewer roles will be discussed later in the meeting schedule.

In general, the sequence of steps for the review of an application begins with the assigned reviewers announcing their initial ratings. If an application is not streamlined, the committee discussion proceeds.

The primary reviewer leads with a brief synopsis (~2-5 minutes) of the proposal and their assessment, describing the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. Next, up to two secondary reviewers will contribute points of agreement or disagreement with the other reviewers and elaborate on any points not already addressed.

The Chair will then open the discussion to all committee members, followed by consensus ratings, final scores, budget and term discussions. Additional information on how Peer Review Committee meetings unfold can be found in the

Peer Review Manual – Project