As appropriate for specific funding programs, applications are categorized by theme (e.g. biomedical, clinical, health services and population health), with each theme having a corresponding review panel. The chairs and scientific officers of all review panels cross-check the groupings to ensure the research proposed within each application aligns with the panel it is assigned to.

Once the application deadline has passed, we recruit reviewers who are subject matter experts in areas that directly align with the applications we have received. These reviewers are selected for their research excellence, breadth of knowledge and maturity of judgment. We’ve been matching reviewers to applications based on expertise for 15 years, drawing on “external readers,” often from the international community, for highly specialized applications.

Review panel meetings take place in a virtual format. Each reviewer is encouraged to share unbiased feedback and discuss scoring for each application (excluding those with conflicts). Through this frank and open discussion, reviewers challenge and hold each other accountable for adjudication decisions.

For each application, two lead reviewers (chosen for their subject matter expertise) share their assessments and initial scores. The panel then discusses the application, and the lead reviewers can revise their scores after considering these additional insights. This creates a “consensus score” that forms the basis for the voting range. Finally, all panel members (excluding those with conflicts) score the application anonymously; the average of these scores is the final score for the application.

At the end of each review meeting, we invite reviewers to share feedback on the program, resources provided to applicants and review process. This ensures we continue to refine our programs and processes to ensure they are high quality and meet the highest scientific standards.