CIHR 2012 DRA results?

[stephie baby]

Hey guys,

Here is the response I got from CIHR regarding the review process

"The discrepancy review process used by CIHR addresses situations in which applications near the funding cut-off are deemed to be at risk of an unfair decision due to a wide spread between the two reviewers' ratings. The “acceptable” range is determined based on the level of variation of all scores received. This means that the “acceptable” range will differ from year to another."

My questions....

- What was the cutoff this year?

- What was the acceptable range this year?

- Are applications deemed to be "near the funding cut-off" AFTER the two scores are averaged? If not, how is this done? E.g. Would an application that was ranked at 4.5 and 3.5, averaged to 4.0, not be reviewed because it was not near the funding cut-off?

If anyone has any more information I would love to hear it!

Cheers

How long did it take before you heard from them? I emailed them on Tuesday morning because I had a 2 point discrepency on my publications a 1.5 and a 3.5. I have 2 papers (not first author, but it is VERY VERY rare to have a first author paper before your 2nd or 3rd year PhD in Psychology) and a ton of conference presentations at the national and international level. We are almost wondering if it could be a typo- a 1.5- seriously?? I also had about three other 1 point discrepencies, and absolutely no comments from one reviewer. Did anyone else get weird reviews like that?

Someone asked about the rankings, I was ranked 348 and my average was 4.12, cutoff had to be at least 4.4 or higher this year. My supervisor said the competetion is getting ridiculous and she is a chair.

[Mike Slackenerny]

Publication Activity 3.8 4.2

Other Research Activity 4.0 4.3

Academic Performance 4.2 3.9

Reviewer Score 3.8 4.3

Training program 4.1 4.2

Scientific Activity 4.5 4.4

Research Resources 4.2 4.3

Training Record 4.5 4.1

Weighted Score 4.01 4.23

This is what I got. I didn't have a lot of discrepancy like you did... I also had only one first author paper, with some conference presentations. The comments were 2 lines from each reviewer.

I felt that I didn't get high scores anywhere. A lot of people end up with 4.5-4.7s. I think I missed out there...

Edited April 23, 2012 by Mike Slackenerny

[OriginalBDivision]

Stephie, I have not heart from CIHR regarding my second set of questions. The first question came back to me within 2 days. Let me know what you hear!

Thanks for posting your scores Mike.

My scores:

Publication Activity 4.8 3.7 (2 first author, 3 second author)

Other Research Activity 4.6 3.8 (Ranked 56th in Vanier last year, ach!)

Academic Performance 4.0 3.9

Reviewer Score 4.2 3.8

Training Program 4.3 4.1

Scientific Activity 4.2 4.0

Research Resources 4.5 4.0

Training Record 4.4 4.3

Overall weight scores - 4.30 and 3.89 - Average 4.10, Ranked 431

Youch!

Anyone with a score near the cutoff that could report on what was needed for acceptance this year?

On to the next competition!

[Dal PhDer]

I have heard a lot of strange stories from CIHR results this year.

A gentleman in my lab, who is perfect on paper (6-7 publications, 3-4 are first author; successful Masters scholarships; lots of RA work) and I was sure was a shoe in, actually ranked significantly lower than myself...who is not even CLOSE to his publication record. Apparently, there are "committees" within A and B that are linked to topic. I am thinking that regardless of if you are A or B, some people may have been reviewed against each other if they were in the same topic area (e.g., cardiac health).

Honestly, a 4.3 vs 3.89 is huge. If you are close to the cut off (I don't know what it was this year), I would certainly ask for a third reviewer!

Good luck with future competitions everyone!

[i am waiting to see SSHRC results....I want to the % funded...seems like CIHR is hopeless!]

[OriginalBDivision]

Hey guys,

Here is my response from CIHR (if anyone is interested). The cut-off was 4.33 this year.

"The DRA peer review committee cut-off was 4.33.

The highest and lowest scores provided by the reviewers for your application are respectively 4.30 and 3.89. The mean score is 4.10

CIHR’s system calculated the High Average and the Low Average scores (using the Standard Deviation and Mean difference). In your case the High and Low Average scores were respectively 4.19 and 4.01.

The way the system and the re-review works is:

· If the mean score is above or equal to the cut-off, the new low average is used to determine if a re-review is required. If the new low average is below the cut-off, then the re-review is required.

· If the mean score is below or equal to the cut-off, the new high average is used to determine if a re-review is required. If the new high average is above or equals the cut-off, then the re-review is required.

Your case applies to the second option. This explains why the re-review process was not applicable to your application."