Note: Your signature on the paper version of the review form, or transmission of your final evaluation to NSERC either by mail or by using the electronic evaluation process, means that you have read these instructions and that you consent to these uses and disclosures.
In addition, you may refer to:
Information on the following topics is provided below:
To read the PDF version you need Adobe Reader 5.0 (or later) on your system. Acrobat Reader is available from the Adobe Reader download page.
If you are in a conflict of interest or for any other reason unable to act as a referee, please contact us directly or send us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org as soon as possible. In order to identify yourself and the application(s) you are unable to review, please indicate your Personal Identification Number (PIN) and the committee and application number in the SUBJECT line of your e-mail message.
Suggested referees should not be in a conflict of interest. Refer to the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy of the Federal Research Funding Organizations for more information. In addition, referees (external reviewers) must sign the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement for Review Committee Members, External Reviewers, and Observers before they access the application material.
Allegations of misconduct must be treated separately from the peer review process. Should your review reveal concerns of possible misconduct, please report any allegation separately to the Research Ethics Coordinator. Your report should only address the application and selection criteria and make no mention of the misconduct concerns.
Please assess the proposal using the evaluation criteria described below. For each criterion, please provide your comments in the text box located on the Referee Report/Application for a grant (Form 140).
Note on student identification: Applicants should not be penalized for not having the specific names of students if generic information is provided. NSERC requires applicants to obtain consent forms from students before including their names on a Personal Data Form (Form 100). As this is not always feasible, applicants also have the option of providing information on students without providing their names (this information might be more generic).
A fundable proposal must satisfy five general conditions:
The project must be scientifically sound, technically feasible, and promise either discovery of new knowledge or the innovative application of existing knowledge that has industrial relevance. The objectives and conduct of the project must be consistent with, and beneficial to, the educational and research missions of the university.
Projects that only involve the implementation of existing technology, provision of routine analytical services, data collection without interpretation of underlying mechanisms, or the exercise of professional practice or provision of consulting services, per se, do not qualify for support.
The assembled research team under the leadership of the principal investigator must, collectively, possess all the expertise required for the successful execution of the whole project. Expertise may reside primarily with the principal applicant, with co-applicants, or within the collaborating company, and may be augmented by other members of the research team.
The proposal must demonstrate industrial relevance and/or reasonable probability of economic payback to the Canadian economy within a reasonable time frame. High-risk projects and those with indirect or long-term payback are supportable where the potential for scientific and/or socio-economic benefits is commensurate with the cost.
The collaborating company or group of companies must demonstrate both the capability and the willingness to exploit successful research results to the benefit of the Canadian economy. It must also contribute its own resources to the proposed activity in a measure appropriate to the risk and/or reward involved.
The proposal must indicate how the knowledge and experience gained by graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, research assistants or others, including company personnel, is relevant to the advancement of the field, to developing practical applications of knowledge, or to strengthening the industrial research base.
In assessing the merits of the proposal, please comment (as appropriate) on the criteria listed below and then clearly state your overall funding recommendation.
On the balance of its strengths and weaknesses, would you recommend funding this proposal?