Research Grants
Review Process
The grant application review process used by OICR is founded on the principles of scientific peer review. Fellow scientists identify applications that exhibit the greatest potential to develop novel cancer interventions.
Proposals submitted to the Cancer Research Fund will be reviewed by one of two standing panels– the Translational Research Panel or the Clinical and Companion Trials Panel.
The Translational Research Panel is composed of members with a broad range of expertise in the relevant scientific disciplines, as well as members with backgrounds in academic research. The Panel will use external reviewers when required.
The Panel will evaluate the scientific merit of the applications, the capability of the research team, linkages with the private sector, and the likelihood of success. A key criterion in the evaluation will be the novelty of the proposal and its potential to lead to an effective intervention.
The Clinical and Companion Trials Panel is composed of members with backgrounds in academia, industry, as well as investigators from major existing clinical trials groups.
Like the Translational Research Panel, this Panel will also evaluate the scientific merit of the applications, capability of the research team, linkages with the private sector, and the likelihood of success. A key criterion will be the novelty of the approach and the potential of that approach to lead to an effective intervention.
NOTE: Prior to receipt of any grant application package, panel members review and complete a 'reviewer agreement' regarding nondisclosure of confidential information and avoidance of real or perceived conflicts of interest.
The panel review process, like the application and institutional approval process, is also conducted online via CaAwardNet. Panel members are provided scientific summaries and applicants’ and co-applicants’ names in order to determine their level of expertise on applications, so that applications may be appropriately assigned for panel members to review (described in more detail below). The actual scoring process during review meetings is also conducted on CaAwardNet: panel members enter and save their scores online (also described below).
All scientific review panel members are selected for their individual expertise and not as representatives of any particular organization. All members of the scientific panel read each application. Only members who have been assigned as primary, secondary or external reviewers are required to make written reports. These reports form the basis for discussion during the panel deliberations. During panel deliberations, other panel members comment on any aspect of the application, and on the strengths or weaknesses of the PI/team. The Scientific Officer of each panel records the most significant points raised during the discussion of each application without participating in the formal rating exercise. The reviewers’ written comments together with the Scientific Officer’s notes are used to generate a constructive critique of the proposal that is provided to all applicants.
During the evaluation process, panel members rate all applications using a rating scale similar to other granting agencies, namely:
4.1-5.0 |
Outstanding and will be funded |
3.7-4.0 |
Excellent and should be funded |
3.4-3.6 |
Very Good and may be funded |
3.0-3.3 |
Good and may be funded |
below 3.0 |
Has flaws that prevent recommendation for funding |
Applications from each panel are ranked according to their mean score. Since the two panels have dissimilar sets of criteria for what makes a project successful and meet on separate occasions, the absolute scores are not comparable across panels. The scores are used only to achieve a relative ranking of grants on the panel.
Funding cut-off values for each panel are determined as follows:
In the first step of the process, OICR staff meet with the two panel chairs to obtain opinions on appropriate cut-offs. OICR staff then examine the cut-offs and the budget to determine the number of grants that can be funded; this information is discussed with the OICR Board. It is possible to identify comparable levels of quality on the two panels and to assign fair cut-offs on each panel. However, it is likely that cut-off values on the different panels will be at different scores.