Canadian Cardiovascular Society

CCS Research and Fellowship Awards Rating Criteria

Reviewers will provide a rating of the application. This is a combined rating for all three adjudication criteria. Please ensure that you consider your assessment of all criteria in your rating.

CriterionRating (1 to 49)
Significance and Impact of the Research (need for research, potential impact of the findings) 
Approaches and Methods (proposes a clear question with appropriately designed methods and analysis, with few limitations identified); originality, feasibility) 
Expertise, Experience and Resources (quality of applicant, research environment, research team) 

Rank and Rating Scale Descriptor Range
Outstanding 45.0-49.9
Excellent 40.0-44.9
Very good 35.0-39.9
Good 30.0-34.9
Needs revision 25.0-29.9
Needs major revision 20.0-24.9
Seriously flawed 10.0-19.9
Unacceptable/ Rejected 00.0-9.9

Written Review
Provide a critical assessment of the application by stating the strengths and weaknesses of the project, as well as constructive feedback based on the evaluation criteria described in the peer review manual.

Integration of Budget Assessment
Reviewers are asked to determine if the budget is appropriate as described in the application and if it is realistic and well-justified.

CCS Award Assessment Criteria
Assessment Criteria:
All applications are reviewed by two peer-review committee members from the CCS research community and, whenever deemed appropriate by the Chair where additional expertise is required, a third reviewer. Scientific reviewers score the application based on the following criteria:

1. Significance and Impact of the Research: Is the study well justified? Are the preliminary data compelling? Is there a need for research? Is the potential impact of the findings important?

2. Approaches and Methods: applicant proposes a clear question with appropriately designed methods and analysis, with few limitations identified; Is the study well outlined and reasonable for the timeline?; what is the originality? what is the feasibility?

3. Expertise, Experience and Resources: What is the quality of applicant? appropriate team members included? Is suitable expertise available, particularly to support an early career researcher or a researcher branching to a new topic? Is the research environment supportive?

Scientific reviewers will also evaluate the proposed budget for appropriateness and feasibility. The expectation of the proposed budget is that it is fully justified and takes into consideration the needs of the research project and any anticipated changes in requirements over the term of the grant.

Back to top