[V] Experiences and Challenges Faced by Canadian Health Research Grant Peer Reviewers

Joanie Sims Gould,1 Anne Lasinsky,2 Adrian Mota,3 Karim M. Khan,1,2,4 Clare L. Ardern5,6 Objective There is robust debate about the perceived strengths and weakness of grant peer review. Much of the research on issues in grant peer review is based on quantitative analysis of funding or scoring outcomes, which does not illuminate the experiences of peer review committee members. The objective of this study was to explore and understand the experiences and challenges faced by Canadian health research grant peer reviewers. Design This qualitative study received ethics approval from the University Behavioural Research Ethics Board. Study conduct and reporting followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guideline. Chairs, peer reviewers, and Scientific Officers of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) project grant competition peer review panels were interviewed. CIHR staff prepared a list of 50 potential participants who represented the 4 primary branches of CIHR research (biomedical, clinical, health systems and services, population health) from a public website. The inclusion criterion was having participated in a CIHR Project Grant competition peer review panel at least once as a peer reviewer, chair, or scientific officer. The researchers randomly selected names from the list and sent a recruitment email inviting participants to an online semistructured interview. The response rate was 36%. Two experienced qualitative researchers recruited and interviewed participants on a rolling basis from February to August 2022. The study team met biweekly to review the interview transcripts. All participants provided verbal consent for audio recording and reporting of quotes at the beginning of the interview. The interview guide was developed based on a priori concepts of peer review and the study team’s research experience in the field of grant peer review. There were questions about participants’ background, training in peer review, strengths and challenges of the review process, and managing conflict and bias. The analysis used a framework analysis approach.1 Data were sifted, charted, and sorted based on key issues and themes to identify a thematic framework, compare and contrast themes, and explore similarities and differences. Results Eighteen participants were interviewed, all of whom were mid- or senior-career researchers (age 42-77 years); 11 participants (61.1%) were women and 7 (38.9%) were men. Twelve participants (66.7%) identified as White, 3 (16.7%) as South Asian, and 3 (16.7%) as other race or ethnicity. Participants identified 3 threats to grant peer review: (1) lack of training and limited opportunities to learn, (2) challenges in differentiating and rating applications of similar strength, and (3) relying on academic reputations and personal relationships in the review process to differentiate grant applications of a similar rating. Conclusions Experienced grant peer reviewers in the Canadian health funding context identified an absence of training and learning opportunities for peer review, difficulty differentiating between applications of similar strength, and an emphasis on academic reputations and personal relationships in rating applications for the Project Grant Competition. Reference 1. Srivastava A, Thomson SB. Framework analysis: a qualitative methodology for applied policy research. Journal of Administration and Governance. 2009;72. Accessed May 31, 2025. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2760705 1Department of Family Practice, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; 2School of Kinesiology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; 3Canadian Institutes of Health, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; 4Canadian Institutes of Health–Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; 5Department of Physical Therapy, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, clare.ardern@ubc.ca; 6Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Conflict of Interest Disclosures Adrian Mota is acting vice president, Research–Programs for the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR). Karim M. Khan is scientific director for the CIHR Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (2017-2025). No other disclosures were reported. Funding/Support This work was supported by a CIHR research operating grant (scientific directors) held by Karim M. Khan. Role of the Funder/Sponsor The CIHR had no role in design and conduct of the study. The CIHR did not participate in interpretation of the data or the preparation of the abstract and did not participate in the decision to submit the abstract for presentation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.