Canadian Institutes of Health Research

New Open Suite of Programs and Peer Review Enhancements

University of ManitobaFebruary 14, 2012

Objectives of the Discussion

• To provide a high-level overview of the proposed design for the new Open Suite of Programs and Peer Review Enhancements.

• To obtain feedback on the proposed design from an Institutional perspective.

• To begin the discussion on Institutional role in the new Open Suite of Programs and future transition considerations.

2

The Rationale

• CIHR has a broad mandate to support the creation and translation of health research across all domains.

• The current Open Suite of Programs presents both real and perceived barriers to certain types of research and researchers, and is not well positioned to capture innovative and ground-breaking research.

CIHR intends to re-design the Open Suite of Programs to better:

1. Capture excellence across all research domains;2. Capture innovative/breakthrough research;3. Contribute to improved sustainability of the long-term research enterprise; and4. Integrate new talent.

• This will allow CIHR to sustainably contribute to the health research enterprise, and maintain Canada’s competitiveness in today’s knowledge-based economy.

3

• The Canadian health research community and other stakeholders have also told us that they are looking for change. A number of challenges have been identified:

4

The Rationale

• New Open Suite of Programs will be structured into two separate, complimentary funding schemes:

• The Foundation/Programmatic Research Scheme is about funding people. The assessment criteria in this scheme would be based on the caliber of the applicants and their vision for their program of research. We want provide longer-term support with the freedom to create, change, and re-direct research efforts, as required.

• The Project Scheme is about funding ideas. The assessment criteria in this scheme would be based on the quality and originality of the idea. We want to ensure that there are opportunities for all types of researchers to bring forward proposals from all areas of health research.

• Both schemes would involve a multi-phased competition process that promotes gated submissions with specific application criteria at each stage.

• The new Open Suite of Programs would be supported by a College of Reviewers – a bank of trained specialists, generalists and lay reviewers who would be matched to specific applications.

5

The Proposed Design

66

The Proposed Design

This funding profile illustrates that the majority of grantees held less than $150K of in-year funding in 2010-11. The average value of an individual grant is approximately $123K per year.

• CIHR is in the process of modeling different scenarios• Our principle is to maintain the number of unique NPIs funded by Open programs

7

An example of the proposed multi-phased competition process for the Project Scheme

They are reviewed by some 500-800 reviewers

Approx. 5000 apps are received

Approx. 2500 apps progress to stage 2

An illustrative scenario….Those are reviewed by approx. 500-800 reviewers

Approx. 955 project grants are awarded

The Proposed Design

Design Element: Foundation/Programmatic Research Scheme – Institutional Support• Successful programs of research will require more support than what CIHR can

provide through a grant.

• The Foundation/Programmatic Research will require grant applicants to secure “significant support” from Institutions as part of their application package. Current thinking suggests this may include commitments for:

• Time Release (i.e., protected time for research);• Infrastructure;• Resources;• Knowledge Translation support (e.g., technology transfer);• Training;• Salary;• Career Development;• Other?

Institutional Considerations

How can CIHR and research institutions work together to maximize the overall impact researchers have through their programs of research?

Design Element: Multi-Phase Competition Process

• Multi-phase competition involves using a gated submission process with specific application criteria at each stage.

• Stage 1 applications will be short, and would require less effort to process than the current number of longer, larger single applications.

• Stage 1 of the multi-phased competition process will triage the number of applicants who move on to submit a full application.

• CIHR anticipates that Institutions will have fewer “full” applications to process.

Institutional Considerations

What will be the impact of using a gated submission process on your internal processes?

Design Element: College of Reviewers

Institutions are encouraged to work with CIHR to ensure appropriate peer reviewer recognition, as part of the effort to secure a sustainable foundation of available expertise for peer review.

Previous conversations with Institutions suggested the following incentives are possible options to further incentivize peer review:

• Performance management processes• Tenure and promotion• Protected time

Institutional Considerations

What other types of meaningful incentives would institutions be willing to provide to peer reviewers?

• Current thinking suggests a gradual phase-in strategy will be used to implement the new design in small, progressive steps.

• CIHR is considering piloting some elements of the new Open Suite of Programs design.

Current considerations for transition include:• Education, training and support for applicants and reviewers.

• Developing a thorough understanding of system-wide impacts of changes to CIHR’s programming.

• Working with institutions and partners to ensure smooth transition.

• Development of a monitoring and evaluation system to ensure continuous quality improvement of the new system.

Transitioning to the New Schemes

11

• The target is to announce some decisions about the design of the new Open Suite of Programs in June 2012.

• Applicants and reviewers would be provided with at least one year to allow time to prepare.

• The first funded researchers under a new set of funding schemes announced in 2014-15.

Transitioning to the New Schemes

12

Are there any other transition considerations CIHR should be aware of?

The Design Discussion Document was posted to the CIHR website on February 9, 2012.

Feedback on CIHR’s proposed changes can be submitted through:

• On-line discussion forum - February to March 2012

• Direct e-mail address - February to March 2012

• Feedback form - February to March 2012

• Town Halls/Institution Discussion Forums - February to April 2012

Feedback

13

We invite you to join us in an on-going, active and production discussion about the proposed new Open Suite of Programs and peer review enhancements over the coming

weeks.