Two UdeM peer reviewers cited for excellence

Gregory Emery (G. E.): In Canada, much of biomedical research is supported by the CIHR, which holds two regular grant competitions each year. For each competition, more than 2,500 applications are received. With a success rate of approximately one funded application for every six or seven submitted, how can this large number of projects be adequately evaluated? This task is handled by committees of researchers. Each committee receives applications related to its field of expertise, evaluates them, and assigns them a score. This process is referred to as peer review.

David Knapp (D.K.): The work of a CIHR reviewer is twofold. First, we must determine which proposals are scientifically sound and are most likely to improve the health of Canadians and humanity in general. Are the experiments logical and do they adequately address the questions raised? Will the team be able to carry them out within the allotted time? Does the researcher have a history of scientific productivity in this field?  Second, we must provide an unbiased and constructive evaluation report for all applications evaluated. This report should summarize what we thought of the proposed project, its strengths and weaknesses. This aspect of the evaluation is probably the one with the greatest impact, as it allows us to help ensure the scientific quality of all projects, not just those that receive funding.

G.E.: Indeed, the goal here is not simply to criticize the application, but to provide suggestions to help the researcher improve their project. To carry out this exercise fairly and impartially, we must learn about the state of research in the relevant field and detach ourselves as much as possible from our biases. The evaluation process takes time, but it allows for constant learning. However, it can be frustrating to see that very high-quality research will not be funded in a competition.

D.K.: It plays a crucial role in the quality control of scientific work being carried out and disseminated, particularly in light of the hyper-competitive, novelty-rewarding system currently in place. Peer review is one of the bulwarks that ensures science remains dedicated to discovering what comes closest to the truth.

G.E.: Indeed, if researchers were not involved, who would evaluate research projects? Probably people who would not have the necessary knowledge to assess the quality and importance of the research. There would be a high risk of bias. Fundamental research, for example, whose benefits are only apparent in the long term, would probably see its funding greatly reduced.

G.E.: Participating in project reviews at the CIHR is both a duty and an honour. It is a duty because the system cannot function without peer review. It is also an honor because being invited to serve on a review committee is a form of recognition by our peers.  It is also a privileged position from which to observe the rigour and seriousness with which reviewers approach the process.

D.K.: Like Greg, as a scientist, I consider participating in peer review to be one of my fundamental duties. Like a cancer cell that loses its control mechanisms, the system would be prone to corruption without our active participation in this process. We now know what happens when the truth is twisted; we must actively combat this type of distortion.

G.E.: Definitely! As evaluators, we have privileged access to the inner workings of projects: the rationale, the techniques proposed and the perspectives considered by our colleagues. It's very enriching. I also enjoy the intellectual exercise of discussing and even debating proposals. Another great satisfaction is meeting new colleagues and discovering their expertise through the committees. New scientific collaborations can even result from this.

D.K.: Absolutely. This opportunity to meet and interact with researchers we might not otherwise have encountered helps to strengthen the country's scientific community. Participating in the evaluation process also gives us the perspective to critically assess our own work, which allows us to improve our own writing. It's a great learning experience.

G.E.: It's very gratifying to see our effort and the time we invest as reviewers being recognized. It's a behind-the-scenes job that is rarely talked about. Personally, I always question how I'm doing as a reviewer; this acknowledgment validates my work and motivates me to continue.

D.K.: I would even add that, when it comes to academic promotions or our own funding applications, recognition of this type of award would be desirable. Unfortunately, this isn't the case at the moment, despite the substantial effort we put in to peer reviewing.

G.E.: To be honest, I don't know. With experience, I think I've learned to summarize my conclusions effectively, getting straight to the critical points without dwelling excessively on details.

D.K.: To me, good evaluators provide critical, impartial, and constructive feedback: their job is as much about ranking as it is about helping applicants improve their work. I try to hold myself to these ideals when I conduct reviews, and I hope I succeed more often than not.