Grant Application Support

To help increase the competitiveness of CRINA members for CIHR and other funding, CRINA offers services to assist applicants at all stages of the application process. The different types of review are described below. There is no deadline and you can submit a request when you are ready to initiate a specific process. The process is designed for CIHR, but we welcome submissions to other national cancer agencies (CCS and CRS). We encourage researchers to plan early as last minute peer review with a short deadline may not be possible.

Please note that we are not able to assist with international grant applications or accommodate external reviews at this time.

Ideas incubator
A CRINA member has some interesting data but requires assistance to formulate a grant application. An informal presentation of the data would be provided to a small group of researchers. Feedback on the data will be provided and ideas on future directions and how a grant might be formulated will be discussed.  

Submitted materials: Up to 10 keywords that describe the research and up to 5 possible internal reviewers.

Concept discussion
A CRINA member has generated preliminary data and formulated an outline of an application. The proposed grant outline would be presented in a discussion format and a small group of reviewers would provide feedback on the proposed study.

Submitted materials: A completed abstract of the proposed study and up to five possible internal reviewers.  

Peer review of a new grant application
A complete grant application is submitted for peer review by two reviewers. Reviews can be provided anonymously in writing or feedback can be provided in person. Ideally the application should have gone through a concept discussion prior to formulation of the application, but this is not a requirement.

Submitted materials: A copy of the complete grant application including the scientific summary as a single PDF document and up to five possible internal reviewers. Applicants will select if they prefer anonymous review or in person feedback.

Peer review of a grant not funded by CIHR or other national organization
Two reviewers will read the proposal and the review comments and provide feedback on how best to revise the application. This can be by way of anonymous internal review or through discussion with the reviewers.  

Submitted materials: A single PDF of the complete application including the scientific summary, proposal, peer reviewer comments, and SO notes (if not streamlined) and up to five possible internal reviewers. Applicants will select if they prefer anonymous review or in person feedback.

Discussion of an application that has gone through multiple cycles of submission
A CRINA member can receive advice on how to proceed with the application since continued submission of the same application may not achieve success at the current panel. A couple of reviewers will evaluate the materials and provide some strategies for how to proceed. This may include modifying the grant for a different committee, approaching the topic from a different direction for the same committee, generating additional preliminary data or other strategies. The feedback could either be anonymous and the reviewer would be encouraged to be candid, but respectful, or in person with interactive discussion. The later would likely be more productive for this type of discussion. As this would require considerable effort by the reviewers, it cannot be requested during the short period between receipt of the reviews and the subsequent CIHR application submission deadline.    

Submitted materials: A complete package of up to four of the most recent submissions of the application, the response to reviews for each application and the complete sets of reviews for all submissions. Separate PDF documents for each competition should be submitted. Applicants will select if they prefer anonymous review or in person feedback.

Request custom feedback
CRINA members can request a specific type of feedback that would work best for their situation. We may not be able to honor the request, but we may be able to use the information to structure new types of review processes if we receive multiple similar requests.