Research chairs program under review

Kondro, Wayne
May 2008
CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal;5/6/2008, Vol. 178 Issue 10, p1263
Academic Journal
The article reports that the Canada Research Chairs program will be reviewed by an international peer-review panel. It relates that the review of the chairs program will include evaluation by an independent panel, as well as consultation measures with the universities to determine if the aspects of the program, including institutional allocations, should be changed. It notes that the program was created in 1999 for Canadian research and development excellence, and its 2000 chairs were divided among 61 universities, using a distribution formula based on each institution's track record in obtaining grants from the nation's three granting councils. It is noted that the program has revitalized university-based research in the country.


Related Articles

  • Voice of Experience. Kulakowski, Elliott C.; Chronister, Lynne; Molfese, Victoria; Slocum, J. Michael; Studman, Cliff; Waugaman, Paul // Journal of Research Administration;2007, Vol. 38 Issue 2, p125 

    The article presents a clarification on the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) review process at a time when competition for NIH funding is more acute than it had been just a few years ago. It is stated that a clear discernment of the NIH peer review process is essential to NIH funding...

  • Loyalty and U.S. Public Health Service Grants.  // Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists;May1955, Vol. 11 Issue 5, p196 

    The article discusses the research grant programs conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service. The Study Sections and seven statutory National Advisory Councils are being relied to by the Surgeon General for assessment of the scientific merit of requests for the said grants in aid. Though the...

  • Peer review. Ferguson, Robert P.; Griffin, Stephanie M. // Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives (JC;2012, Vol. 2 Issue 3, p1 

    In this article the authors explain the importance of peer review. They claim that peer review offers a check on the validity of manuscripts and sets standards for scientific purposes. They highlighted the reasons as to why someone should be involved in peer review. They explain the effrots of...

  • California universities maintain tobacco habit.  // Nature;9/27/2007, Vol. 449 Issue 7161, p390 

    The article reports on the approval of the new policy by the University of California's governing board on September 20, 2007 which allows its ten campuses to continue in accepting research grants from various tobacco firms in California. Under the new policy, proposed tobacco-firm grants will...

  • New European Funding Agency Backs "Blue-Skies" Research. Bosch, Xavier // JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association;4/18/2007, Vol. 297 Issue 15, p1644 

    The article discusses the European Research Council (ERC), a research funding agency in the Europe Union. The president of ERC, Fotis Kafatos, provides comments. A scientific council within the ERC will decide upon what research to fund and will establish the peer-review process. The European...

  • Examining the value added by committee discussion in the review of applications for research awards. Obrecht, Michael; Tibelius, Karl; D'Aloisio, Guy // Research Evaluation;Jun2007, Vol. 16 Issue 2, p79 

    We examined a process for evaluating research fellowship proposals in which each was assigned to two members of a review committee for in-depth assessment. Before the committee meeting the reviewers scored the proposal against weighted criteria using benchmarked scales and a detailed rating...

  • Demystifying the NIH Proposal Review Process. Molfese, Victoria J.; Cervelin, Joseph; Miller, Pamela F. // Journal of Research Administration;2007, Vol. 38 Issue 2, p127 

    The article presents questions and answers related to the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) review process including the role difference of principal investigators and a research administrator, responsibilities as a peer reviewer, and the number of peer reviewers for each round of proposals.

  • An Analysis of Preliminary and Post-Discussion Priority Scores for Grant Applications Peer Reviewed by the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH. Martin, Michael R.; Kopstein, Andrea; Janice, Joy M. // PLoS ONE;2010, Vol. 5 Issue 11, p1 

    There has been the impression amongst many observers that discussion of a grant application has little practical impact on the final priority scores. Rather the final score is largely dictated by the range of preliminary scores given by the assigned reviewers. The implication is that the...

  • Writing proposals for research funds. Singh, Mina D.; Cameron, Cherylyn; Duff, Diane // AXON/ L'AXONE;Mar2005, Vol. 26 Issue 3, p26 

    In this paper, we provide generic guidelines for writing proposals for research funds. These guidelines apply to quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research proposals. A proposal for research funding provides an overview of the planned research and is required by funding agencies. The...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics