CIHR changes peer review system following working meeting ordered by Health minister

The embattled Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has agreed to modify its controversial new on-line peer review system. The move followed a terse directive from Health minister Jane Philpott to hold a July 13 emergency working meeting to address a tidal wave of dissent from thousands of health researchers across the country (R$, July 8/16).

The decision to implement a hybrid system of peer review was closely followed by a delayed announcement of results of its Project Grant and Foundation Grant competitions, which yielded a 13% success rate.

According to a CIHR statement on the July 13 working meeting, the hybrid system agreed upon includes the following features:

• Face-to-face discussions will be restored and virtual discussions will no longer be needed;

• Teams of virtual chairs and scientific officers will be organized to oversee a group of applications throughout the process;

• A complementary iterative process will be implemented for indigenous focussed research;

• A working group will be created to further refine the recommendations moving forward.

The decision to institute several immediate changes is being described as a "first step". The freshly minted Peer Review Working Group — led by Dr Paul Kubes, a Univ of Calgary professor and researcher — will further "advise CIHR on the implementation of peer review changes before the launch of the next Project Grant and Foundation Grant competitions". The working group held a face-to-face meeting August 5 to "focus specifically on the peer review process and how it will move forward."

The results of the recent competitions — delayed twice while the now-modified on-line evaluation system was being prepared — have further exacerbated frustration within the researcher community. Dr David Kent, a research at the Univ of Cambridge's Stem Cell Institute, referred to the process as a "gong show" while other researchers lamented the low quality of some on-line reviewers, some of whom didn't even bother to participate.

The Project Grant competition resulted in 491 grants funded at an average size of $791,000 over four years, including 98 grants to new- or early-stage investigators. An additional 127 bridge grants were also awarded resulting in a total investment of $375.6 million over five years.

The Foundation Grant competition awarded $292 million over seven years for 120 research programs with an average grant size of $2.4 million. The mid-career grant average for 87 recipients was $3.3 million and $1.1 million for 33 new- and early-career investigators.

R$