outline of proposed research cihr

How to write a successful CGS-D or PGS-D application

Joseph Sebastian: My name is Joseph Sebastian and I’m a biomedical engineering PhD candidate at the Institute of Biomedical Engineering in Craig Simmons’s lab, and I was awarded the NSERC doctoral candidate graduate scholarship, ranked first out of 149 candidates in committee 194, which are applicants in chemical, biological and material science engineering.

The doctoral PGS or CGS stands for the Postgraduate Scholarship or the Canadian Graduate Scholarship, respectively. What are they? And what is the difference between the PGS and the CGS doctoral scholarship?

Joseph Sebastian: So graduate doctoral awards are generally administered for one to three years by the three federal tri-councils. And those tri-councils are the major federal source of funds for research and scholarship for academic institutions. So those three tri-councils are the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, which are CIHR, and NSERC and SSHRC, respectively. Each federal tri-council has a different way of administering these doctoral postgraduate scholarships or Canada graduate scholarships.

So I’ll start with NSERC and CIHR, I don’t need to focus on SSHRC for this podcast. So in NSERC, there’s one competition, but there are two types of awards that are given to winners. And it can be confusing to know what’s the difference between both. So it’s called the PGS competition, or the postgraduate scholarship competition. But there are two awards available. The CGS-D are Canada graduate scholarship doctoral, and the PGS-D which is the postgraduate scholarship. There’s a single application for both programs. But the highest ranked applicants in this NSERC PGS competition will be offered a CGS-D and then the next highest rank applicants will be offered a PGS-D.

Now, the difference between both is that the CGS-D is a value of $35,000 per year for three years or 36 months. And the PGS-D has a value of $21,000 per year for 36 months.

And for CIHR, they don’t have this separate competition. It’s a single $35,000 competition. However, what’s different between CIHR and NSERC is that the stipend for CIHR is $30,000 per year, not $35,000 per year for 36 months, and the extra $5,000 goes towards a research allowance towards equipment or going to conferences and things like that. So that’s the difference between PGS and CGS and how it’s administered in NSERC and CIHR.

And I assumed the amount that’s being awarded either $21,000 or $35,000. That’s non-taxable?

Joseph Sebastian: Yes, that’s correct.

Okay. So what’s the eligibility requirements? Is everybody eligible? And what are the components required to finish the application?

Joseph Sebastian: So the eligibility criteria is listed online, on either the NSERC or CIHR website. Essentially, you need to be a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, or intending to pursue full time graduate studies and research at the doctoral level in either the natural sciences or engineering or in health research.

So a key eligibility requirement that used to be there but is not anymore is that, you do not need a first class average or a grade of an A- in each of the last two years of study. So grades play a little bit less of a role in your eligibility or your ability to win a CGS-D or PGS-D.

Two BME students awarded prestigious Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships

Joint programs with a professional degree. So MD/PhDs are eligible, but they have to have a significant research component and you’d only be able to have the funds during the PhD portion of the program.

There are a bunch of eligibility requirements that are based on the number of months you have been in the program, and I would just recommend looking at the website for how to count those months.

And you can’t have held a tri-agency doctoral level scholarship before.

And the last eligibility that I wanted to mention is that you can hold an NSERC PGS-D abroad. So you can take the PGS-D from NSERC to another institution, outside of Canada, even in the UK, if you hold an undergrad or bachelor’s degree from a Canadian university.

To answer your second question, so what are its components? The criteria for the award is 50% on research ability and potential, and 50% on relevant experience and achievements obtained within and beyond academia. So those are the criteria. And the corresponding components are in an online application form, whether it’s on research net, or through NSERC, where you list your experiences, awards, and location of your tenure. For the NSERC application, you have to describe your most recent thesis. And you also have to talk about diversity considerations.

Another component is your outline of proposed research, which includes your summary of your future research endeavors, make sure you follow the NSERC standards. And that proposed research will include a background, objectives, hypothesis, the approach, specific aims and impact. And you want to be focusing on what you will be working on during the tenure of the award.

And there’s a whole section on impact and significance to the natural sciences and engineering for NSERC. And I believe there is also a section for this significance for CIHR. And you want to make sure it’s a maximum of two pages, and you’re allowed figures.

The other components of an application are a bibliography for NSERC applications justifying the eligibility of your research. So that focuses on essentially, if your research has any potential overlap with the health sciences or the social sciences, you can explain why you’re applying to NSERC. And that component is not seen by the selection committee. But most applicants will write a justification for eligibility of your proposed research.

And then you have to write something called a contributions and applicants statement, where you list articles you published, accepted, submitted, significant contributions to research and development, your experiences outside of academia, and relevant activities, any leadership roles you’ve taken.

And then there’s some other documents such as like a special circumstances document, where you can describe any special circumstances that have had an effect on your performance or productivity. So that includes health problems, family responsibilities, parental leave disabilities, or any other circumstances. And now with COVID-19, you can write a special circumstances document to describe COVID related delays, which essentially allow applicants or students to devote your entire research section to your research plans and not your COVID-19 contingency plans. So you can definitely be open about describing delays and disruptions in your section. So that’s an important addition that that has happened since I wrote my application, but I think is useful for many students.

The other things that you have to add are transcripts, as usual, two reference letters. Generally, they’re from your thesis supervisor, and another academic supervisor. If you have more questions about what to ask your thesis supervisor or academic supervisor, you could listen to our podcast on the Vanier CGS. If you have questions about it, right now, what I would recommend is you want to have your application almost complete by the time you’re asking your thesis supervisor to write a reference letter for you. Because you essentially want them to focus on all the reasons why you should win the award. And by writing out the full application, you have the ability to discuss all the awards you’ve won and how your research is impactful and significant. And you want your referees to draw on those positives in your application. And so that’s very key. We go into depth on reference letters in the Vanier CGS podcast.

How to write a successful Vanier CGS application

And lastly, for CIHR applications, you have to submit a Canadian common CV. It is very long and arduous to fill out. But the main tips I can give here are to make the most out of every entry, and expand when possible. So the example I like to give is when you’re describing awards or scholarships you’ve won, in the title box, on the CCV, for writing the award, always you can include in brackets what the award is for and why it’s prestigious. And the reason for that is arbitrary names for awards are not ubiquitous to reviewers who are reading them, such that they won’t know a specific award at every Canadian university. So it’s really important to expand when possible.

The next advice I can give is, if you have publications, you should basically be very honest, when you are describing your contribution to a particular publication. And that’s because if you were a fifth author, you definitely did not do 50 to 60% of the work. And not being honest like that, looks like you’re overstating your contribution to particular publication. So you want to be as honest as possible there.

Also, with publication contribution, you want to be concise with what you’ve done and not too technical. And generally avoid acronyms, because the reviewers will not all be experts in your field and understand the impact or significance of your contribution to a particular publication.

And lastly, one comment I like to make about the CCV is that the CCV can be used as a place to discuss parts of your application that are not discussed elsewhere. It depends how you format your contribution statement, but it can be very difficult, or you can run out of space to describe your leadership contributions. So your CCV is a good place to list all of them very concisely.

So for the next section, we’re going to talk about the best practices when reading a CGS or a PGS application. And that’s really broken down into two sections, what not to do and what to do. So let’s start with the first section. What are some of the common mistakes that people make when they’re writing a doctoral PGS application?

Joseph Sebastian: I have experiences writing NSERC and CIHR focused application. So my advice is, is based on those. So the common mistakes that I would like to remind people of is, lack of focus or coherence, I find that a lot of students will write their proposal and it will make sense to them. But the ideas don’t flow well, because the students know the information very well. But people reading it outside of their field do not. So lack of focus, I think is a very common mistake.

Repetitiveness, I think that a lot of times, students think that the reviewer did not catch, their piece of information the first time when they said it, but I think you can assume that the reviewer has understood the information the first time you said it.

Another important thing is failure to cite important relevant work in the area. I think that if you do get a reviewer who is knowledgeable of your field, and they look at your bibliography section, and you haven’t cited important papers, they could definitely dock your points. On the other end of the spectrum is citing too many articles, such that your bibliography section is too long, or it’s oversaturated with irrelevant articles. So you have to be very particular about which articles you choose and which ones you cite.

The next mistake is an obvious one, but it’s been told to me and I’ve seen it in many PGS-D NSERC applications which are spelling and grammar mistakes. Spelling and grammar mistakes are the basis for losing points on your application, you want to make sure that you’ve checked and double checked that everything is correct.

Another mistake is too much detail on minor issues or the nitty gritty. And essentially, students get too caught in the weeds and don’t see the forest, by thinking that the most minor of information is important to the reviewer. And generally, it’s not. You just need to provide a coherent and focused research proposal or contributions statement, because that is what will get you the award. Being simple, concise, coherent, are the best tips I can give.

The next thing is really being too modest. So you definitely need to highlight your research contributions, the impact of your work because that is really key towards them understanding your research ability and potential, which is 50% of if you will win an award.

And lastly, emphasizing the impact or importance or significance of your research proposal. You really need to dive in to why your work or your PhD is significant. They are funding for three years through tax-payer money is impactful and significant and important in the context of your field and throughout science, I think that is very, very key.

Do you mind going through some of the things to do for each of the components that you were describing earlier?

Joseph Sebastian: Absolutely. So the first tip I can give is to use the tri-agency website that describes the selection criteria for your award. So NSERC and CIHR have very well put together websites of what reviewers are looking at when they’re evaluating your award. Reviewer spend probably less than 10 minutes, maybe six to eight minutes on each application, and you need to hit all of the selection and evaluation criteria as much as you can. You only have a short period of time to sell yourself, and so following the selection evaluation criteria for whichever tri-agency you’re applying to, is extremely important.

In terms of academic achievements that you want to describe. So reviewers will look heavily at your progress. So your progress in your undergraduate, through your PhD so far, any awards, you’ve won. That progress and those ongoing awards look great, your publications, your historical grade trends. So I know many people who have won awards, even if they didn’t have that grade in first year, but by their masters or their PhD they have been doing very well. That progress is really looked highly upon by reviewers.

Another thing is productivity. So have you output more publications or conference presentations as time has gone on, or started contributing more to particular projects in your lab. So your contributions or role in a project, the impact of the work that you’re doing, awards, presentations, your research background, even undergraduate projects, any achievements outside of just science, so science communication, leadership roles, so volunteer elected positions, clubs, sports, and generally you want to limit it to university level achievements. And (generally), you’re talking about academic achievements, but the experiences outside of academia can be extremely variable.

In terms of your research proposal or plan of study, you want to make sure you write a clear and concise research proposal, like I emphasized earlier. But you want to make sure that an educated non expert could understand. And you want to give your proposal to as many people as possible to review. A professor or senior graduate student, your PI, people outside of your lab, (and) past winners. The CGS-D and the PGS-D are more widely one than the Vanier CGS so it’s easier to find a winner of a Canada graduate scholarship doctoral than a Vanier Canada graduate scholarship. So it might be easier to find a past winner that can critique your work.

Another tip I have is to read the proposal out loud to yourself, if it doesn’t sound natural, if the ideas don’t flow well, if it’s all over the place – it definitely needs more work. And you want to make sure you know that you’re engaging the reviewer. And it’s really important to make sure that the reviewer is enjoying reading your application. They have to read many, many applications, so if you write an enjoyable one to read, they might be favourable with their scores for your particular application.

And lastly, I want to focus on specifically for the research proposal and the planning to study is the importance and significance again, which is you want your reviewer to fight for your application, you want your reviewer to see the need for the funding for your work. And that is a key way of looking at how to argue the impact or significance of your work.

Now, in terms of the last two parts, I want to talk about writing style and formatting. And so I talked about this also on the Vanier CGS podcast, which is you want to make it easy for the reviewer to read your application and to find key information. Use headings to separate each section, apply boldface, or underlined text very sparsely, but very strategically used. You want to be clear, you want to be succinct, and you want to be scholarly, but you also want to be understandable. So using fancy words or bigger words that you’ve looked up on Thesaurus.com, may not always be the best way to describe an idea. You always want to be understandable. And it goes without saying you want to follow the formatting standards outlined on the either NSERC or CIHR website to the tee, do not think that you can get away with changing the margins or, adding an extra line on a third page or anything like that, they will not give you the award, they will throw out your application because you did not follow the formatting standards.

And the last tip that I have is to think about sex and gender-based analysis in your work. Essentially, both NSERC and CIHR, and SSHRC for sure, they want to ensure that the research that they fund is impactful, but also relevant to the diversity of the Canadian population. And so they require applicants to systematically examine how differences in identity factors such as sex, gender, race, ethnicity, affect the outcomes of the research and impact of the research findings. And so you definitely want to think about how sex and gender based analysis affect your work. And I think that it’s also key to think about how if you’re working in in vivo work, or even in vitro work, how you can use cells or animal lines from both males and females, that would change the fundamental understanding of the conclusions of your thesis.

When someone writes an application, the next stage is it’s being reviewed by a panel of reviewers. And that’s often somewhat of a black box, right? Because as an applicant, you never really know what happens at that stage and how your application has been decided to move on to the next stage. How does the review process work?

Joseph Sebastian: Yeah, so you’re definitely right, that after an applicant submits an application, generally they don’t get feedback on it. In my experience, I didn’t get feedback at all, from any of the reviewers at the departmental, university, and federal level. So how does the review process work? So essentially, you have to first submit your application through your department. And in some cases, students who are affiliated with hospitals that apply to CIHR have to go through generally their institution, and their institution has quotas on how many applicants they can nominate. And then you also have to compete university wide, which means that, U of T will have a competition for how many awards for NSERC they can particularly nominate to the federal level.

And so I’ll just go over a few of the results that I got from the slides from the School of Graduate Studies that outline some of the results from past years. So in 2019-2020, because they haven’t released the results for this year yet. And for NSERC, there were 1,693 applications forwarded by U of T to NSERC but only 713 were awarded, which is a success rate of 39% (Please see addendum in Table 1) . So that’s how many are forwarded versus how many are awarded.

Now, they also look at how many are reviewed for CIHR for U of T. So that, like I mentioned earlier is administered through the institution that you’re affiliated with, generally for health research. So some institutions include Baycrest, Center for Geriatric Care, Holland Bloorview, the Hospital for Sick Children, the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Sinai Health System, St. Michael’s Hospital or Unity Health, and Sunnybrook Research Institute. So U of T specifically received 156 Awards in 2020-2021. And those were the applications reviewed and received, but only 18 awards from U of T specifically, were awarded. And so what that means is that U of T is separate from those hospitals that I mentioned earlier, such that the hospitals may nominate or send specific applications to Ottawa or the federal level, but if you’re not affiliated with the hospital, you have to go through U of T which has its own university wide competition. And so of the 156 that were reviewed and received, only 11.54% were awarded. So you can see already that CIHR is actually more competitive to win a CGS-D or PGS-D than NSERC. And so that is something to think about when applying. If you can make your work NSERC focused, then you should try to because there’s a higher probability that you will win an award, if you apply to answer versus if you apply to CIHR, because the success rate is just less than 12% last year for U of T (Please see addendum in Table 2) .

And so the review process number one is rigorous. It goes through a departmental or institutional competition, sometimes university wide depending on your institution, and then you compete with everyone across Canada. Now, across Canada, you get a score for each of the sections that are the criteria for the award. So like I mentioned earlier, is based on research potential, and research ability, but also relevant experiences in academia and beyond.

And so I mentioned earlier in this podcast at the beginning of my introduction, that I was in committee 194, which focuses on chemical, biological and material science engineering. So when you apply for these awards, you have a specific committee or section that you’re a part of where you’re competing with certain people. And for NSERC, I was in committee 194, that is the tri-agency I applied to and the committee I applied to, and you get a score in each of the sections. But those scores are based on six possible merit categories. Essentially, it is a ranking system from one to six, where six is the highest score you can get, and one was the lowest score. Now, I was lucky enough to rank first in my entire section, which means that out of the 149 applications in my section, I got a six in both sections, both the research potential and ability and the relevant experiences both within and outside of academia. And essentially, that six represents a merit relative to that of the other applications received. So it’s not an arbitrary value that is given. You are judged based on your applications merit relative to that of all the other applications in your particular committee. So for me, it was based on other applications to chemical, biological and material science, engineering, everyone in those three disciplines are competing against each other.

And I just want to make a note that these applications are very tough to get but they are more popular than Vanier CGS and essentially allow your supervisor to pay less for you per year, because you’ve won or in some cases not pay at all. And so although it is rigorous and difficult to get, because you have to go through all this work, I think that it is worth it, even with the success rates for the review process for both NSERC and CIHR.

In the other podcast, you talked about the tips and tricks on how to apply for a Vanier CGS scholarship. And now you’re talking about the doctoral CGS or the doctoral PGS. What’s the difference between the Vanier CGS and the doctoral PGS? And when someone’s going through the kind of awards that they can apply to, what’s the decision process for them? How do they decide which award to apply to?

Joseph Sebastian: So I’ll start off with your first one. So the difference between both of these scholarships is number one, the criteria for which you can win an award. Number two, how many awards are given out per year. Number three, how competitive it is to win the award. And number four, many components of the application are different.

Number of awards given out for the Vanier CGS in encircle last year was only 55. Now if you look at the number of awards given out Canada wide for the PGS-D or CGS-D it was 786, which is a huge difference in the number of awards that can be given. Another thing that’s different is the Vanier CGS is based on your academic achievements, your research achievements, and your leadership achievements. And they’re all weighted equally. Whereas the CGS-D or PGS-D is heavily weighted on your research contributions. Your research is really the key component of this application, and your relevant experiences outside of academia, which can be anything, because like I said earlier that, they’re both within and outside of academia. Now, you should be explaining as much as you can, all the experiences you’ve done, but sometimes people have experiences that in one way, so focus on within academia outside of academia.

Whereas for the Vanier CGS, you have to talk about your leadership in terms of not just the experiences that you’ve had, but when you’ve gone above and beyond the status quo, or what is normally done in a particular role for actually qualifying it to be leadership. And so I think that that is a key difference in how the awards are judged.

And that translates to my third point, which is that the applications are different, right? So the Vanier has a whole statement and two reference letters just focused on leadership. Whereas in the PGS-D and CGS-D, it’s one part of a document that you submit, just part three of your statement of contributions is where you talk about your relevant experiences. And so I think that is a key difference. It’s apples and oranges in terms of criteria for each award. And I think that that is really a big difference in why you know more people just go for the CGS-D or PGS-D.

Now, the obvious other difference is that the money awarded for the Vanier CGS is $50,000 per year untaxed in three installments, whereas, the money for a NSERC PGS-D is $21,000 or CGS-D is $35,000. And the money for a CIHR CGS-D is $35,000. That’s actually a $30,000 stipend and $5,000 research allowance. So it’s a difference between the maximums of $15,000 to $20,000 per year. So more prestigious meant more money, which means that, there’s not as many awards for the Vanier, but many awards for the PGS-D or CGS-D. So those are the key differences I would highlight. But you can also go through the Vanier website versus the CGS-D websites for criteria and see very specifically how they’re different.

Thanks again, Joseph for coming back again for the second podcast and offering a your very insightful advice to the current students or even prospective students who are applying to these awards.

Joseph Sebastian: Yeah, no problem. And I’m happy to help and happy to read or edit people’s applications. I think people listening to the Vanier podcast already reached out to me to help them you know, provide feedback on their applications, and I’m happy to do so. I hope that anyone listening that doesn’t have someone to read their application will definitely reach out, and good luck.

If you would like to learn more about the CGS-D or PGS-D Scholarship application process, you can reach Joseph Sebastian at [email protected].

• Skip to main content
• Skip to "About this site"
• Departments

Language selection

• Search and menus

Pan-Canadian Women’s Health Coalition: Research proposal template

Dear applicant,

Here are a few helpful tips that could assist you with preparing your research proposal:

• Please be sure to familiarize yourself with all the details contained in the funding opportunity , including the evaluation criteria and the instructions on how to complete your application.
• The proposal must follow the formatting expected for all CIHR Applications and PDF attachments .
• You have flexibility to structure your proposal in a variety of ways. The proposal may be submitted in 1) a question and answer format that follows the evaluation criteria (see template on next page as an example), or 2) as a free flowing unstructured document (similar to a typical CIHR proposal) or 3) a combination of the above. It is up to you to decide which approach works best for your proposal. All of the above proposal options will be accepted, provided they follow the formatting expectations for all CIHR Applications and PDF attachments .
• Each proposal must be uploaded as a PDF that does not exceed 7 pages for proposals written in English and 9 pages in for proposals written in French.
• While each of the evaluation criteria are equally weighted, you have the flexibility to determine the content distribution (in terms of page count) needed in order to adequately address each of the criteria.

We wish you all the best in your submission preparation,

Nominated Principal Applicant:

• How is your hub's team considered through an equity, diversity and inclusion lens? Please address this question, ensuring that you consider the evaluation sub-criteria as well.
• How will your hub mobilize new and existing knowledge and models of care in your priority area(s) to develop effective, gender-sensitive and culturally appropriate women's health and wellness services? Please address this question, ensuring that you consider the evaluation sub-criteria as well.
• How will your hub meaningfully engage diverse groups to ensure their voices guide the hub's priorities and activities? Please address this question, ensuring that you consider the evaluation sub-criteria as well.
• How will your hub build capacity for the next generation of women's health researchers? Please address this question, ensuring that you consider the evaluation sub-criteria as well.
• How likely is it that your hub will create meaningful change and impact in women's health, relative to the hub's scope? Please address this question, ensuring that you consider the evaluation sub-criteria as well.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to "About this site"
• Departments

Language selection

• Search and menus

Project Grant Program: Application Process

On this page.

• Peer Review Committee Mandates – Project Grant Program

What is a resubmitted application?

Resubmitting an application: response to previous reviews, commercialization projects, section 1 - the need for a trial, section 2 - the proposed trial, section 3 - trial management, other important issues.

• The Need for a Trial
• The Proposed Trial
• Trial Management

Project Grant Competition FAQs

Priority announcements and the project grant - frequently asked questions, peer review committee mandates – project grant program.

As of the Fall 2022 Project Grant Competition, please note the following changes to the indicated peer review committees:

• Developmental Biology (DEV) and Endocrinology (E) have permanently been dissolved due to consistently low application pressure, and their focus areas have been embedded into other committees' mandates, for example, Cell and Developmental Physiology (CBC) and Clinical Investigation A: Reproduction, Maternal, Child and Youth Health (CIA)
• Immunology & Transplantation (IT) has been replaced by Immunology (IMN)
• The NSA committee has changed its name from Systems & Clinical Neurosciences to Systems & Circuits Neurosciences
• The CBC committee has changed its name from Cell Biology – Physiology to Cell and Developmental Physiology

These changes were developed in consultation with the reviewer community during the Spring 2021, Fall 2021, and Spring 2022 Project Grant competitions, to ensure that the mandates remain relevant in the current research environment. Please ensure that you read the mandates carefully prior to submitting your registration, as most of them have changed slightly.

The following table presents an alphabetized list of peer review committees and their corresponding mandates for the Project Grant Program. When applying for funding, at the time of registration, you should suggest up to two committees whose mandates most closely align with your research project. Please review the committee mandates before applying in order to correctly identify the best committees for the review of your application. Suggested committees must remain unchanged between registration and application. If your application overlaps with more than one area of science, please select the peer review committees that best reflect the research area and objectives of your application. CIHR will consult with committee Chairs and Scientific Officers in assigning applications to specific committees, and will make the final decision on which peer review committee will review each application based on the summary of proposed research received during the registration stage. The final committee selected may not necessarily be your first or second choice as the authority for the assignment of applications to a peer review committee rests with CIHR.

The final list of committees held for a given competition may differ from the list of committees available at the time of the registration. Applicants will be informed of which peer review committee reviewed their application on their Notices of Recommendation and of Decision.

Resubmissions: How CIHR handles resubmissions

All applicants that were unsuccessful in their previous submission may resubmit their application to a subsequent Project Grant competition. These applications are considered resubmissions. Note, the question "Is this a resubmission of an unsuccessful application to the same Funding Opportunity?" is specifically asking if the application is a previous submission to the Project Grant competition.

Committee members are instructed to treat all applications, including resubmissions, as new applications . This is done in an effort to ensure that all applications are reviewed relative to each other.

If you are resubmitting an unsuccessful application, you may provide a response (maximum of 2 pages) to previous reviewers' comments from a previous Project Grant competition(s) It should be noted that addressing previous reviews does not guarantee that the application will be better positioned to be funded as it is placed in a new competition and will be evaluated relative to new applications. Furthermore, given the dynamic nature of committee membership between competitions, applications are not necessarily evaluated by the same peer reviewers from one competition to the next, although every effort is made to ensure some continuity between reviews where possible.

Peer Reviewers do not have access to the previous iteration of the application and are instructed to evaluate the application submitted as a stand-alone entity. However, they are asked to evaluate the "Response to Preview Review" section.  Depending on the cohort of applications received by a committee, an application may receive higher or lower rating and/or ranking than in previous competition depending on how it compares to the evaluation criteria and other applications' ratings/rankings.

For more information and instructions on submitting a response to previous reviews please refer to the Project Grant: Application Instructions .

Knowledge Translation  is a dynamic and iterative process that includes the synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically-sound application of knowledge to improve the health of Canadians, provide more effective health services and products, and strengthen the health care system.

Commercialization and innovation refer to the component of knowledge translation that is focused on bringing intellectual property (IP) (new products, tools, or services; for full definition see below) to a state of use in the private, not-for-profit, or public sectors. CIHR is also committed to facilitating the commercialization of health research in Canada in support of its overall mandate to excel, according to internationally accepted standards of scientific excellence, in the creation of new knowledge and its translation into improved health for Canadians, more effective health services and products and a strengthened Canadian health care system.

Many of the inventions and discoveries arising through academic research are at a stage beyond discovery-driven research and yet are often of uncertain utility or insufficiently developed to be of interest to relevant receptor companies, organizations, and potential investors. Such IP may never be licensed, commercialized, or otherwise applied, without additional targeted research, market research, investment, and business development activities. These activities are of paramount importance, because they serve to validate, better define and add value to the IP but they require resources that typically cannot be obtained through the traditional funding mechanisms.

Commercialization projects can currently be considered for funding as part of the Commercialization (CMZ) peer review committee of the Project Grant Competition.

Commercialization projects are designed to advance discoveries/inventions towards commercializable technologies, with a view to attract new investment, create new science-based businesses, organizations and initiatives, and ultimately improve health outcomes for Canadians.

For commercialization projects, the applicant(s) should include a Research/Technical Plan and a Commercialization Plan as part of their research proposal.

Note that evaluation of applications reviewed in the Commercialization (CMZ) committee will include the assessment of both the Research and Technical plan and the Commercialization plan based on the following criteria:

• Description, feasibility and appropriateness of the research plan;
• Originality of the research plan and impact of the expected contributions;
• Relevance and description of the scientific and/or technical requirements to move the invention/discovery towards commercialization;
• Identification of the potential hurdles and how they will be addressed;
• Qualifications and track record of the applicant(s);
• Applicants' familiarity with the literature in the field and the current competitive, or emerging, technologies;
• How the proposed experiments will strengthen the IP position or generate new IP.
• Description, feasibility and appropriateness of the commercialization plan;
• Demonstration of a need for the research;
• Impact of proposed product/service on the health of Canadians and/or the Canadian health economy;
• Description of the IP protection strategy, prior art, market evaluation and opportunity as appropriate;
• Consideration of the potential barriers to commercialization;
• Industry/sector contacts, appropriateness of the receptor company/organization;
• Qualifications and track record of persons associated with the commercial aspects of the project and identification of the business expertise needed to complete the plan;
• Capacity and commitment of the applicant's institution to take the project through the commercialization process;
• Appropriateness of the milestones and follow-on steps planned at the conclusion of the project.

Definition of Intellectual Property (IP): Intellectual Property means all materials, methods, concepts, products, processes, discoveries, genetic constructs, know-how, show-how, formulae, inventions, improvements, industrial designs, processes, patterns, machines, manufactures, compositions of matter, compilations of information, whether or not legally protectable, including patents and patent applications, copyrights, trade secrets, technology, technical information, software, prototypes and specifications, including any rights to apply for protections under statutory proceedings available for those purposes, provided they are capable of protection at law.

RCT Evaluation Criteria and Headings

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experiment in which investigators randomly assign eligible human research participants or other human units of study (e.g., classrooms, clinics, playgrounds) into groups to receive or not receive one or more interventions that are being compared. The results are analyzed by comparing outcomes in the groups.

Please refer to the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS-2), Chapter 11 for important information including key requirements and recommendations for conducting trials.

Of note, irrespective of the suggested peer review committee , evaluation of all applications containing an RCT as a major component will need to consider the specific RCT evaluation criteria below . In addition, such applications containing an RCT as a major component must also be structured according to the specific headings below .

Applications considered to contain RCT as a major component include:

• Applications exclusively containing an RCT (or multiple RCTs)
• Studies including multiple aims where the main focus is an RCT (such as a combination of development or pre-clinical work, with a trial or a trial, with some follow-up work)
• Any application where the majority of the budget resources are directed towards an RCT component

Applications not considered to contain RCT as a major component include:

• Applications with multiple aims, with a small RCT being only one of those aims
• Studies where the possibility of a small RCT is discussed, but is centered around animal-work
• Studies where no randomization is occurring (participants may have been previously randomized, but no new randomization is being done in the context of the work proposed)
• Studies about RCTs, but that do not contain an RCT component (e.g. translational work following a completed RCT)
• Systematic reviews of RCTs which do not include an RCT component
• Any non-randomized clinical trial

Evaluation Criteria

The peer review committees will take into account the following key questions when assessing each section of the application containing an RCT as a major component.

Has the importance of the issue been adequately explained in terms of:

• Present and future resource implications for Canadian healthcare and the economy in general.
• Are the hypotheses to be tested and/or the study objectives specified and described clearly?
• Is the trial addressing the right question(s)?
• Is this the right time to conduct the trial with respect to current knowledge of the intervention and current use of existing technologies?
• Are the reasons for the study and the changes that might be implemented as a result of the study adequately explained?
• What evidence is available to inform the need for and design of this trial (e.g.: systematic reviews)?
• Is the proposed research compatible with the extent of the available knowledge, nationally and internationally?
• What impact will the results have on practice or our understanding of the proposed intervention or underlying condition?
• Will the results of the trial be generalizable beyond the immediate research setting of the trial in a way that will maximize the impact of the results?
• Is the study design appropriate to answer the research questions posed?
• Has sufficient account been taken within the study design of the issues of generalizability and representativeness?
• What is the justification for the hypothesis underlying the power calculations?
• Are the outcomes, and their measures, clearly described and appropriate to the scientific hypothesis?
• Has the trial population been defined adequately in relation to the target population so that the results will have meaning?
• Have the measures been validated specifically for the target population(s)?
• Is the control group appropriate?
• How will sources of bias be avoided or taken account of?
• Does the proposed team of investigators have the necessary range of disciplines and experience necessary to carry out the study?
• Does the trial team include people with experience in successfully running large multi-center trials?
• Has adequate statistical advice been sought and incorporated?
• Has adequate advice been sought and incorporated on other health services research issues if they are to be addressed?
• How will the trial be coordinated?
• What are the roles of members of the trial team?

Health Economics

CIHR does not require that health economic measures be included as outcomes in all its trials. However, it does require a clear and informed justification of why these measures are to be either included or excluded.

Quality of Life

CIHR does not require that quality of life measures be included as outcomes in all its trials. However, it does require a clear and informed justification of why these measures are to be either included or excluded.

Consumer Involvement in Trial Development

CIHR encourages the involvement of consumers and patient advocate groups with the aim of better trial design and greater acceptability of both trials and its findings.

Biological samples for future genetic analysis

The potential value of RCTs as a source of well-characterized samples for future genetic analysis is being increasingly recognized and proposals for collection of this type of sample within a trial are welcomed. However, applicants should carefully consider the balance between the potential value of the samples and the impact on recruitment and logistics of the trial.

International Collaboration

Please discuss the nature of and need for international collaboration.

If relevant, discuss the involvement of any proposed partner(s).

Irrespective of the suggested peer review committee, all applications containing an RCT as a major component must be structured according to the headings provided below.

Applications should include only the main headings by title, while the subheadings may be referred to only by number.

An entry is required under every heading and subheading.

Please note that failure to comply with these requirements can negatively impact the evaluation of your application.

1. The Need for a Trial

• 1.1 What is the problem to be addressed?
• 1.2 What is/are the principal research question(s) to be addressed?
• 1.3 Why is a trial needed now? E.g. Provide evidence from the literature. Furthermore, give references to any relevant systematic review(s) Footnote 1 and discuss the need for your trial in the light of the(se) review(s). If you believe that no relevant previous trials have been done, give details of your search strategy for existing trials.
• 1.4 How will the results of this trial be used? (E.g. contribute to knowledge translation, such as improving understanding, informing decision making and treatment guidelines, etc.)
• 1.5 Are there any risks to the safety of participants involved in the trial? Please describe.

2. The Proposed Trial

• 2.1 What is the proposed trial design? E.g. Open-label, double or single blinded, etc.
• 2.2 What are the planned trial interventions? Both experimental and control.
• 2.3 What are the proposed practical arrangements for allocating participants to trial groups? E.g. Randomization method. If stratification or minimization are to be used, give reasons and factors to be included.
• 2.4 What are the proposed methods for protecting against sources of bias? E.g. Blinding or masking. If blinding is not possible please explain why and give details of alternative methods proposed, or implications for interpretation of the trial's results.
• 2.5 What are the planned inclusion/exclusion criteria?
• 2.6 What is the proposed duration of treatment period?
• 2.7 What is the proposed frequency and duration of follow up?
• 2.8 What are the proposed primary and secondary outcome measures?
• 2.9 How will the outcome measures be measured at follow up?
• 2.10 What is the proposed sample size and what is the justification for the assumptions underlying the power calculations? Include both control and treatment groups, a brief description of the power calculations detailing the outcome measures on which these have been based, and give event rates, means and medians etc. as appropriate.
• (N.B. It is important to give the justification for the size of the difference that the trial is powered to detect. Does the sample size calculation take into account the anticipated rates of non-compliance and loss to follow-up given below?)
• 2.11 If applicable, are health service research issues be addressed? Justify inclusion/exclusion of health economics and quality of life measures. If these measures are to be included full details should be given including power calculations.
• 2.12 What is the planned recruitment rate? How will the recruitment be organized? Over what time period will recruitment take place? What evidence is there that the planned recruitment rate is achievable?
• 2.13 Are there likely to be any problems with compliance? On what evidence are the compliance figures based?
• 2.14 What is the likely rate of loss to follow up? On what evidence is the loss to follow-up rate based?
• 2.15 How many centers will be involved?
• 2.16 What is the proposed type of analyses?
• 2.17 What is the proposed frequency of analyses?
• 2.18 Are there any planned subgroup analyses?
• 2.19 Has any pilot study been carried out using this design?

3. Trial Management

• 3.1 What are the arrangements for day to day management of the trial? E.g. Randomization, data handling, and who will be responsible for coordination.
• 3.2 What will be the role of each principal applicant and co-applicant proposed?
• 3.3 Describe the trial steering committee and if relevant the data safety and monitoring committee.

CIHR requires that you adhere to all instructions and requirements to ensure fairness to all applicants. This includes using the correct font sizes, spacing, page limits etc. The reason for these formatting requirements is to ensure that all applicants have exactly the same amount of space to write their proposals. Failure to comply with these requirements may negatively impact the evaluation of the application. In cases of non-compliance, CIHR reserves the right to withdraw your application.

The Summary of Progress task is mandatory for all Nominated Principal Applicants applying to the Project Grant competition.

When completing your Project Grant application on ResearchNet, the Summary of Progress is found under “Task 2: Enter Proposal Information,” sub-task “Attach Summary of Progress.” This ensures it is appropriately placed within the Proposal section of the application for reviewers to access when completing their review. Instructions on how to complete the Summary of Progress, and what to include in this document, can be found in the Project Grant application instructions .

While some will recall the Summary of Progress from when it was last used in 2015 (in the Open Operating Grant Program, or OOGP), the scope of this current document is much wider. In 2015, the purpose of the Summary of Progress was to summarize the progress under your current grant (for returning applicants) and to summarize previous relevant work (for new applicants).

The current Summary of Progress goes further, by asking applicants to write a narrative that includes, as appropriate, the progress of their line of research; any impacts on their research (e.g., leave history, career stage, family responsibilities, pandemic impact or other circumstances); and their budget requested in relation to overall funding. For more information, consult the Project Grant application instructions .

The Summary of Progress is a narrative that will allow you to describe the reason you are requesting funding for your proposed project in the context of your broader research activities. It is not expected that applicants will provide a detailed accounting of their research history but rather, only what is relevant to the current application. It should include progress made on your research to date (including contextualizing research activities, contributions and impacts that support your current application) and any impacts on the progress of your research. Tables, figures or graphs are not permitted in the Summary of Progress. It is suggested to not duplicate the information found in your ‘Significant Contributions’ section or CV. Additionally, please note that all information necessary to adjudicate the science of your research proposal must be found in the 10 pages for English applications and 12 pages for French applications Footnote * of the research proposal (i.e., the Summary of Progress is not to be used as an extension to your proposal).

When contextualizing the amount requested vis-à-vis your funding profile, you do not need to list all grants currently or previously held or duplicate what is already found in your CCV but rather include information that helps inform and convince reviewers that this funding is needed and how it fits in to the overall research program. Any pending applications under review (CIHR or other source of funding) related to the current submission should be indicated in the Summary of Progress to help reviewers understand any potential funding overlap. It will be incumbent on the applicant to illustrate clearly to reviewers why the requested funds are needed, how they are distinct from the funds currently held, and how they will advance research.

When contextualizing your progress, productivity, and impact, there is not a specific number of years that should be provided; rather, this is an opportunity to list any activities, contributions, and impacts that are relevant to the current application .

If you are an ECR who has never held a CIHR grant before, you should use the Summary of Progress to write a narrative about your intended program of research, relevant research undertaken as a trainee and independent investigator, other sources of funds held (e.g., awards, start-up funding), and how the requested funds will advance your research activities.

If this is a new application, a narrative explaining how you came to submit this application, or where this current proposal stems from, is relevant information to share with the reviewer. If you have held a Foundation Grant, contextualize your Foundation Grant.

The Summary of Progress will provide added context that will enable a more robust peer review of your application. It will help peer reviewers understand your progress, productivity, and impacts as they relate to your ability to deliver on the project and how your proposed activities fit into your overarching research program and address why the requested funds are needed and how will they advance your research.

Contextualizing your current and pending funding will help peer reviewers assess your progress, productivity and impact as well as the need for new funds in the context of the overall research program and provide them with the confidence to move forward with a recommendation. This also adds more accountability in respect to applicants’ requests for funding.

The Summary of Progress will provide CIHR with valuable information as we move toward removing the across-the-board budget cuts applied to all funded applications. Our intent is to provide greater discretion to peer review committees on budget allocations, and the Summary of Progress is a tool to allow them to make these judgements.

If an applicant provides a response to previous reviews, they must attach all the reviews and Scientific Officer (SO) notes (if provided) they received related to reviews to which they are responding. Applicants may choose to respond only to comments that are relevant to their revised application.

For example, an applicant submits an application to the spring competition, and it is not approved for funding. They reapply to a subsequent competition (e.g., the next fall competition) and choose to respond to previous reviews from their previous submission in the spring. They must attach all the reviews and SO notes (if provided) from the spring competition. Should the application submitted to the fall competition also not be approved and they reapply to the next spring competition (this would be their third submission of that application), the applicant can respond to comments from only the fall application, only again from the previous spring competition or both competitions. When an applicant refers to comments from a particular competition, all reviews and SO notes (if provided) of that competition MUST be attached.

Scenario 1:

The applicant has been unsuccessful in two competitions and is preparing for their third resubmission (and therefore has two sets of reviews from two previous competitions that they may choose to address as part of their response to previous reviews).

For their third resubmission, in the 2-page response to previous reviews, the applicants chose to address certain comments only from their latest round of evaluations. They are addressing one comment from Reviewer 1 and one comment from Reviewer 2; they chose to not address any comments from Reviewer 3.

In this scenario, the applicants must include all the reviews from the latest round of evaluations (Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, and Reviewer 3) and SO notes (if provided), even though they have chosen to not address any comments from Reviewer 3. Because they chose not to address any comments from the reviews from their very first submission, those reviews do not need to be attached.

Scenario 2:

For their third resubmission, in the 2-page response to previous reviews, the applicant chose to address certain comments from the latest competition, and from their very first submission. They are addressing one comment from Reviewer 1 and one comment from Reviewer 2 from the previous competition and choosing not to address any comments from Reviewer 3. In addition, they are addressing a comment from Reviewer 1 from their very first submission.

In this scenario, the applicants are expected to provide previous reviews from all reviewers and SO notes (if provided) stemming from BOTH competitions.

No, previous reviewer comments may only stem from previous Project Grant competitions.

All Canadian academic applicants, regardless of their role on the application, must submit a Biosketch CV which is completed through the Canadian Common CCV. CIHR continues to pull important data from the CCV and it is closely linked to the underlying infrastructure of CIHR’s grants management system.

If you are a knowledge user, non-academic, an Indigenous organization, or an international applicant, you have the option of submitting either a Biosketch CV or a streamlined Applicant Profile CV. The instructions for how to complete an Applicant Profile CV can be found on the CIHR website. Although the Applicant Profile CV may not exceed three pages, there are no section restrictions; therefore, as an applicant you can choose what to emphasize. If you are a non-academic, it is possible that not all sections are applicable to you.

Collaborators are not required to provide a CV.

In their evaluation of the application, peer reviewers assess whether or not sex- and gender-based analysis (SGBA) is a strength, weakness, or not applicable; this is to be reflected within their written evaluation and the overall score assigned to the application.

We have taken steps to prepare for former Foundation Grant-holders to transition back into the Project Grant program, by providing transition options to Foundation grantees (including staggering former Foundation grantees’ return to Project, deferrals, and grant-size reductions). You can read about transition planning considerations for Foundation grant-holders on the CIHR website.

CIHR is investing the funding previously allocated for the Foundation Grant program, as it becomes available, directly into the Project Grant program. When the Foundation program sunsetted, the planned investment per annual Foundation competition was $100M. This means that, starting with the Spring 2021 Project Grant competition, approximately $50M is being added to each twice-yearly Project Grant competition. Total budgets for Project Grant competitions are therefore being increased from $275M to approximately $325M, for a total investment in CIHR’s investigator-initiated research program of approximately $650M per year.

CIHR will ensure that the proportion of grants funded for ECRs, female NPIs and applicants submitting in French is at least equal to the proportion of ECRs, female NPIs and applicants submitting in French who apply to the competition. In other words, we are equalizing success rates for these groups, if needed.

If highly ranked applications from ECRs , female NPIs, and applications written in French are not funded at a level at least equal to the rates at which these groups have applied, then CIHR intervenes by funding additional applicants based on their percent rank. ECRs, female NPIs, and applicants submitting in French funded through this process are combined and treated as separate cohorts for the purpose of making funding decisions. This means that the intervention is completed at the competition level and not the committee level to ensure that the top applicants are selected.

The peer review process hosted virtually mimics the in-person face-to-face process. While CIHR has made some adjustments to account for the technology and the fact that meetings have moved online, all core aspects of in-person peer review have been retained.

We have heard from the community that there are benefits to virtual peer review (e.g., improved work-life balance, reduced carbon footprint). Virtual peer review also makes it possible for some individuals to participate in peer review where face-to-face meetings would not be feasible for them. This allows us to include a greater diversity of individuals across panels and provides the agency with a broader pool of reviewers. Virtual peer review also benefits diversity by including more international reviewers. This feedback and on-going evaluation of the virtual process is informing our thinking as we determine, with the community, our approach to peer review moving forward.

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) is a global initiative whose purpose is to support the development and promotion of best practices in the assessment of scholarly research. DORA recognizes the need to improve the ways in which research is evaluated, beyond widely used journal-based metrics. As a signatory of DORA , CIHR has reaffirmed its commitment to excellence in research evaluation. CIHR recognizes and values a broader range of contributions and emphasizes their quality and impact.

CIHR's approach to research assessment within the Project Grant Competition already reflected many of the DORA principles, such as encouraging peer reviewers to consider a range of research outputs broader than published journal articles. The updates to the guidance further encourage the assessment of research rather than prestige, including directing reviewers that they should not use journal-based metrics as surrogate measures of the quality of individual research publications. The updated guidance materials provide examples of more inclusive and expansive contributions to help in the crafting and assessment of applications.

Applicants can highlight a range of research contributions and impacts in their CV, Summary of Progress and/or in their Most Significant Contributions sections of their applications. This could include contributions such as: research publications, reports, books, guidelines, datasets, code, tools, training and mentorship, volunteerism, community engagement, standards, software, and commercialized products—and impacts such as how your work has influenced policy and practice, health outcomes, societal outcomes, and whether you have engaged in distinctions-based, meaningful, and culturally safe health research.

Peer reviewers are directed to consider a range of contributions and impacts in their assessment of applications. Peer reviewers are also directed to consider the context of applicants and how that may have affected their productivity.

CIHR is pleased to support a number of Priority Announcements as part of the Project Grant competition. The complete listing of Priority Announcements is now available.

Priority Announcements (PAs) are additional sources of potential funding for highly ranked applications submitted to the Project Grant competition. The PAs outline specific research areas relevant to CIHR Institutes, Initiatives and Partners, and applications that align with those areas may be selected for funding – without having to re-apply.

There are three types of PAs:

• One-year grant / Multi-year Grant : Applications below the Project Grant Competition's funding cut-off that are deemed relevant to a PA will be funded top-down until the PA funds are exhausted.
• Supplemental Funding (“Top-up”): encourage the inclusion of specific research approaches or analysis in applications funded by the Project Grant Competition.
• Prizes/Awards : Prizes or Awards are not selected by the applicant. A Prize (or Award) is allocated to the highest ranked funded applications that are relevant to a specific area of research and/or career (stage such as Early Career Investigators) in order to recognize excellence in research. Prizes are supplemental grant funds to support research, they are not a personal award.
• Applicants submit their applications to the Project Grant competition, following all application instructions as they normally would. The only difference in the application process is that the applicant can also identify up to three PAs for consideration.
• Each PA will include a description of the target research area that it will support. Applicants are encouraged to read the description of all PAs to identify those that are relevant to their work. Some PAs will require the applicant to complete a relevance form by entering approximately one half-page of free form text to describe how and why their application is relevant to the areas described in the PA. For PAs that do not require a relevance form, the application's relevance to a given PA will be assessed using the summary of your research proposal (from the application).
• The relevance form provided by the applicant and/or the summary of research proposal (depending on the PA's specific requirements) will be considered by the CIHR Institute or Initiative, or by the funding Partner supporting the PA. Applications deemed relevant to (or in alignment with) the research areas described in the PA will be considered for PA funding.
• Within their application to the Project Grant competition, applicants must consent to the sharing of information in order to be considered for Priority Announcements. Applicants who do not consent to this sharing of information will be considered ineligible for Priority Announcements.
• The application is assessed through the Project Grant peer review process, as usual.
• When the peer review process for the Project Grant competition is complete, funding decisions will be made. CIHR funds applications in rank order until the competition funds are exhausted. This is often described as the “funding cut-off.”
• Inevitably, highly ranked and meritorious applications fall below the funding cut-off for the competition. It is these applications – the ones that are highly ranked but ultimately not funded through the budget available for the Project Grant competition – that may be supported through a Bridge-type or multi-year grant PA. Note: Applications rated below 3.5 are not eligible for PA funding.
• Supplemental funding (“Top-up”) will be allocated to the highest-ranking funded Project Grant applications that are relevant to the selected PAs.
• Prizes (or Awards) will be allocated to the highest-ranking funded Project Grant applications deemed relevant to a Prize PA.

Each PA is different. The funds available for a given PA will be noted in the PA description in the funding opportunity.

If your application is not deemed relevant to the PA, then your application will remain in the Project Grant competition (as per usual) but will not be considered for funding for that PA funding.

Additional funds would only be received if the PA was supplemental funding or a Prize. For any other type of PA, if your application is funded through the Project Grant peer review process, then your full application will only be funded through the Project Grant competition budget and not the PA. In this case, the PA funds would be used to support the next highly ranked application on the list that falls below the funding cut-off.

PAs are a great way to build capacity in different research areas while still encouraging applicants to submit their best and brightest ideas to the Project Grant competition. Through the PA mechanism, CIHR is able to meet its obligation as a federal funder to support investigator-initiated research as well as research into targeted areas addressing some of Canada’s most pressing health concerns.

PAs also reduce applicant and reviewer burden, as applicants do not need to submit a separate application to become eligible for PA funds and reviewers do not need to volunteer their time for a separate competition.

Finally, PAs also offer CIHR’s Institutes an efficient and cost-effective opportunity to support their goals and strategic plans. Some Institutes may wish to dedicate funds to underserved areas of their mandate, while others may use PAs to catalyze important work in emerging research fields.

No. It is not CIHR’s practice to count PA grant funding as part of the competition’s success rate, as the numbers could easily be misunderstood or perceived as inflated. That said, PA grants are important sources of funding and support excellent research across the country.

If your application is the top-ranked application on two PA lists, then you will be awarded one (not both).

No. The “relevance review” process for a PA is separate from the peer review process for the Project Grant competition. The peer reviewers for the Project Grant competition will not assess your application’s relevance to a given PA, nor will your application’s relevance (or lack thereof) have any impact on the peer review deliberations.

The Notice of Decision documentation issued to all applicants at the end of the competition process will include the relevance assessment from the applicant’s PA choice(s).

Representatives from the Institute, Initiative, or Partner funding the PA will complete the relevance review based on relevance forms and/or the summary of your research proposal. Their decisions are final and are not open to appeal. Therefore, it is imperative that you provide a compelling and factual case regarding the application’s relevance to the stated priority areas in the relevance form or demonstrate it clearly in the summary.

The CIHR Contact Centre is available to answer any questions or provide support.

Graduate Studies

Cihr, nserc and sshrc canada graduate scholarships – master’s.

The CGS-M Awards Program supports students in all research disciplines and is administered jointly by Canada’s three federal granting agencies: the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). The selection process and post-award administration are carried out at the university level, under the guidance of the three agencies.

Information Session 2023

Value and Duration

$17,500 for 12 months, non-renewable

Assigned Allocations to McMaster

CIHR-38 NSERC-26 SSHRC-33

Application Deadline: December 1, 2023 – 8 p.m. (ET)

There are no extensions granted by the Agency . Applicants to the CGS M program must complete their application using the Research Portal, hosted by NSERC. It is a single application form used by all three Agencies (NSERC, SSHRC, and CIHR) and the applicant can choose up to 3 universities where they would like to hold their award. Once the student submits the application in the portal, no additional changes can be made.

Other Awards

McMaster CGS M applicants are also eligible for additional McMaster awards such as the Ontario Graduate Scholarship, the Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship in Science and Technology and the Ontario Graduate Fellowship. No additional application is necessary.

Eligibility

• be a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident of Canada or a Protected Person under subsection 95(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Canada) as of the application deadline date;
• be enrolled in, have applied for or will apply for full-time admission* to an eligible graduate program at the master’s or doctoral level at McMaster University
• a master’s program
• a doctoral program that you are entering directly from a bachelor’s program without having ever been enrolled in any graduate programs (direct-entry)
• a combined master’s-doctoral program
• a master’s program that will transition to an eligible doctoral program, either before or after award activation, with no master’s degree conferred (fast-track)
• a master’s program for which the degree requirements will be completed before the end of the award, allowing the award to continue into an eligible doctoral program
• or between four and 12 months of full-time study (or full-time equivalent) in an eligible master’s program for which the degree requirements will be completed before activation of the award, allowing it to be activated during the subsequent doctoral program for which you are requesting funding;
• not have held or be currently holding a CGS M scholarship from NSERC, CIHR or SSHRC
• not have held or be currently holding an Indigenous Scholars Award and Supplement
• have achieved a first-class average, as determined by the host institution, in each of the last two completed years of study (full-time equivalent). At McMaster, a first-class average is a Minimum A- (10/12, 80%) . Note: If a transcript has both letter grades and percentages, you must calculate the averages by using the percentage grades.
• submit a maximum of one scholarship application per academic year to either CIHR, NSERC or SSHRC

Research Portal

Students submit their application using the Research Portal . The Research Portal will allow the application to be submitted to up to three institutions – refer to Application Procedures . Applicants can be considered for a CGS M at McMaster University if they select McMaster as one of the institutions on their CGS M application and are enrolled in, have applied for, or will apply for full-time admission to an eligible graduate program at the master’s or doctoral level.

Program of Study Eligibility

An eligible graduate program must have a significant research component . A significant research component is considered to be original, autonomous research that leads to the completion of a thesis, major research project, dissertation, scholarly publication, performance, recital and/or exhibit that is merit/expert-reviewed at the institutional level as a requirement for completion of the program.

Joint programs with a professional degree (for example, MD/PhD, DVM/PhD, JD/MA, JD/PhD, MBA/PhD, MA/MBA) as well as clinically oriented programs of study , including clinical psychology, are eligible if they have a significant autonomous research component, as described above.

Master’s programs that are based only on course work are typically not eligible since they do not include a significant research component, as described above. Given the specific requirements of certain disciplines, institutions are invited to contact the appropriate agency for guidance on the eligibility of programs of study.

Special circumstances

The agencies require institutions and reviewers to take into consideration special circumstances that may have affected your research, professional career, record of academic or research achievement or completion of degrees. Relevant circumstances might include administrative responsibilities, maternity/parental leave, child-rearing, illness, disability, cultural or community responsibilities, socio-economic context, trauma and loss, family responsibilities or a pandemic.

The following question may apply:

• Do you have any special circumstances to take into consideration that may have affected your research, professional career, record of academic or research achievement or completion of degrees?

If you answered Yes to the above question, the following prompt and text field (5,000 characters maximum, including spaces) will appear:

• Describe any special circumstances that have had an effect on your performance or productivity (required).

Equity, diversity and inclusion

The Tri-agency is acting on the evidence that achieving a more equitable, diverse and inclusive Canadian research enterprise is essential to creating the excellent, innovative and impactful research necessary to advance knowledge and understanding, and to respond to local, national and global challenges. This principle informs the commitments described in the Tri-agency statement on equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI).

Black student researchers

The Government of Canada has deployed additional funds to increase direct support for Black student researchers . CGS M applicants who self-identify as Black and provide consent in their application to be considered for funds designated for specific groups may be able to receive this funding through a scholarship as part of this initiative. Each agency has a limited number of additional CGS M awards reserved for this initiative.

For more information, consult the Frequently asked questions about the new Black scholars funding

Self-identification information

You must complete the self-identification form found in the person profile of the Research Portal when applying for funding. This data provides information on the diversity of the population applying for and receiving agency funds. This information increases the agencies’ capacity to monitor their progress on increasing equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in their programs, to recognize and remove barriers, and to design new measures to achieve greater EDI in the research enterprise. If you do not want to self-identify, you have the option to choose I prefer not to answer for each question, but you are required to select a response for the questionnaire to be marked as complete. Self-identification information is not part of your application and will be neither accessible to nor shared with external reviewers and/or selection committee members. For more information, refer to the Frequently asked questions about the self-identification questionnaire .

Indigenous Scholars Awards and Supplements Pilot Initiative (NSERC and SSHRC)

The Indigenous Scholars Awards and Supplements Pilot Initiative provides financial support to Indigenous scholars who are meritorious in the CGS M program.

• select the Indigenous Scholars Awards and Supplements Pilot Initiative option from the drop-down menu
• indicate your agreement with the self-identification and consent statement by selecting the appropriate checkbox
• complete the Personal statement (3,000 characters max)

For additional information, consult the description of the Indigenous Scholars Awards and Supplements Pilot Initiative on the SSHRC website.

A complete application includes the following documents:

• Outline of proposed research ( maximum of one page ); If the document is longer than one page, the excess copy will be deleted from the application when submitted to the ranking committee
• Bibliography/citations ( maximum of one page ).
• Up-to-date transcripts are defined as transcripts dated or issued in the fall 2023 session of the year of application (if currently registered) or after the last term completed (if not currently registered).
• Official transcripts are defined as transcripts issued by the institution’s registrar’s office. Transcripts from other sources, such as those printed from the student’s account on the institution’s website, are not considered official.
• Electronic transcripts provided by an institution’s registrar’s office are considered to be official transcripts. You should check with your institution(s) to verify whether this option is available to you.
• Opening the transcript envelope and scanning the transcript will not render the transcript unofficial.
• The agencies or McMaster University will not accept transcripts submitted outside of the application platform.
• If you have transcripts written in a language other than English or French, you are required to provide a certified translation of the transcripts.
• If your institution does not provide transcripts, you can submit, in lieu of a transcript, a letter bearing the official institution seal/stamp or a letter signed by the dean of graduate studies or an equivalent confirming 1) your program of study, 2) your registration status and 3) the fact that the institution does not provide transcripts.
• Transcripts must be scanned (black and white recommended) and saved as a single PDF file.
• Include one copy of the legend (reverse of each transcript). Do not scan the legend multiple times.
• Maximum file size of 10 MB.
• Page size 8 ½ in. x 11 in. (216 mm x 279 mm) or A4 (210 mm x 297 mm)
• the CGS M Canadian Common CV (CCV)
• two reference assessments.

Research Portal presentation and attachment standards

Prepare your attachments in any word processing program, following the requirements below. All text, including references (where applicable), must conform to these standards.

• Acronyms and abbreviations must be spelled out completely on initial appearance in text;
• Pages must be 8 ½” x 11″ (216mm x 279mm);
• Pages must be single-spaced, with no more than six lines of type per inch;
• All text must be in 12 pt. Times New Roman font;*
• Condensed fonts will not be accepted;
• Colour imagery is acceptable** but the text should be in black;
• All margins must be set at a minimum of ¾” (1.87 cm);
• Do not introduce hyperlinks or bookmarks in your documents (ensure that your software’s ‘Create bookmarks’ option is de-selected);
• If you have supporting documents written in a language other than English or French, you are required to provide a certified translation of the document.

* The font type and size requirements do not apply to text inside tables and figures. However, for text inside tables and figures, you must use a font type and a font size that are clearly legible. NSERC reserves the right not to accept your application if it does not meet this requirement. Note that figures and tables count toward the specified page limits.

** Applicants who decide to use colour imagery should be aware that the application may not be reviewed in colour. Use of colour increases the file size of your application, and may lengthen download and upload times.

Selection Criteria

Selection Criteria is as follows:

• Academic Excellence – 50%
• Research Potential – 30%
• Personal characteristics and interpersonal skills – 20%

Notification of results

Offers of awards will be available in the research portal as of April 1, 2024. Offers to alternate applicants may be made up until January 31, 2025.

It is the responsibility of the applicant to regularly check the research portal between April 1 and January 31 for results of the competition.

If you are offered an award , you will have 21 days from the date of each offer of award to accept or decline in the research portal. The status of offers not accepted within the 21 days will automatically be changed to Declined and cannot be reversed.

Applicants may accept only one CGS M offer. Once an offer has been accepted, the system will automatically change all other offers and statuses to Declined, and applicants will not be eligible to receive further offers.

Application statuses in the research portal

Received by administrator: The completed application has been successfully submitted to the institution by the applicant.

Offered: An offer has been made to the applicant by the institution.

Alternate: The application has been deemed meritorious in the institution’s competition; however, due to its ranking, it falls below the allocation cut-off. The applicant is therefore on the alternate list. Should an award become available due to a decline, an applicant on the alternate list may receive an offer.

Not offered: The application has been deemed non-meritorious in the institution’s competition. Subsequent offers will not be made to the applicant. Ineligible: The application has been deemed ineligible based on the eligibility criteria outlined in the funding opportunity description.

Accepted: The offer has been accepted by the applicant.

Declined: (a) The offer from the institution has been declined by the applicant; or (b) an offer from a different institution has been accepted by the applicant and, therefore, all other pending offers are automatically set to Declined; or (c) an offer has not been accepted within 21 days from the date of offer.

Deferred: Before commencing an award, the applicant may defer an award for up to three years, for a maximum of one year at a time. Conditions apply; see Tri-agency research training award holder’s guide for details.

Acceptance withdrawn: The acceptance of the offer has been withdrawn at the applicant’s request.

Useful Links

Canada Graduate Scholarships – Master’s program resources

Competition Information

Instructions for completing an application

Research Portal – Frequently Asked Questions

Instructions for Completing the Reference Assessment Form

Create and account on the Research Portal

Login to the Research Portal with an existing account

CIHR Project Grant Updates

~tania watts, cihr delegate, important updates to the cihr spring project grant competition.

There have been several updates to the CIHR Spring Project Grant Competition, including new formatting rules and changes to the types of materials that may be appended to applications. Please review the information below and on the CIHR Project Grant webpage carefully.

Spring Project Grant Competition

For questions concerning the Spring Project Grant Competition, please reach out to our CIHR delegate, Tania Watts .

Important Dates

• Registration deadline:  February 7, 2024
• Internal deadline for MRA form - University of Toronto- February 28
• Application deadline:  March 6, 2024
• Release of Notice of Recommendation:  July 3, 2024
• Release of Notice of Decision:  July 17, 2024
• Funding Start date:  October 1, 2024

How to Apply

• Review the CIHR resources on how to prepare your grant  
• Review the application instructions

Note: You may only submit 2 applications per project competition as a Nominated Principal applicant; any additional applications will be withdrawn based on date submitted .

New! Changes to Appendices

The following appendices are no longer allowed:

• manuscripts
• publications
• extra figures, tables, or consent forms

Additional details from  CIHR  are quoted below in italics, for reference. 

For the Spring 2024 Project Grant competition:

"CIHR will be limiting the types of materials that researchers can attach to their applications. We understand the desire to round out applications with supporting materials and additional preliminary data, but we wish to underscore that all research proposals should be written in such a way that they stand alone. That means that they should contain all the information required to support the assessment of the research plan and contain a complete description of the project."

Note:  detailed rationale is provided on the CIHR website .

"Starting with the Spring 2024 Project Grant competition, the following attachments will no longer be accepted and if included, will be removed from the application:

• Questionnaires, surveys, and consent forms
• Supplementary tables, charts, figures, and photographs
• Patient Information Sheets (for Randomized Controlled Trial applications)
• Publications

Some attachments will continue to be mandatory, such as certificates of completion for sex- and gender-based analysis training modules and letters of community support from Indigenous partners as applicable.

Others will be optional, such as letters of collaboration that outline a specific service that will be provided such as access to equipment, provision of specific reagents, training in a specialized technique, statistical analysis, access to a patient population, etc., and additional CV information to account for any leaves, absences, illnesses, caregiving roles, etc."

Please consult the  Project Grant application instructions  for more information.

Suggestion from your CIHR delegate:  If you want to show evidence of productivity, but data do not fit in the grant, you could upload your manuscript to a preprint server such as BioRXIV or MedRXIV and list it in the reference list. Although the reviewer is not required to look at the pre-print, at least they will be able to find it if they wish to look at specifics or evidence of productivity.

New! Updated Formatting Rules

• The requirement to use Times new roman was introduced last year

"CIHR has simplified its attachment formatting requirements. The following apply to all applicant-prepared attachments  (those you upload as a PDF, such as the proposal and summary of progress)  and must be followed to ensure readability and fairness. Letters of collaboration are not required to conform to these formatting rules.

• Use a 12 point, Times New Roman font in black type. Do not use condensed fonts.
• You may use other fonts and font sizes for text in tables, charts, figures, graphs and legends only, as long as it is legible when the page is viewed at 100%.
• Use a minimum of single line spacing. Do not use narrow line spacing.
• Use normal/standard character spacing. Do not use condensed character spacing.
• Insert a margin of 2 cm (0.79 inch) – minimum – around all pages.
• Observe page limitations. Additional pages may NOT be added unless specified.
• Use only letter size (21.59 X 27.94 cm / 8.5" X 11"), white paper/background for all attachments.
• Attachments must be uploaded in PDF format (unprotected). It is important to confirm that the final PDF document complies with the formatting requirements."

Last competition, 14% of applications had formatting infractions of some kind. We are told that warnings were sent to those with infractions. As of spring 2024 competition,  "CIHR reserves the right to immediately withdraw your application if it does not meet these requirements."

Priority Announcements

• Don't forget to look for Priority Announcements in your area!
• Review FAQs

“Priority Announcements (PAs) offer additional sources of funding for highly rated applications that are relevant to specific research areas. They can be in the form of grants or prizes. The PAs outline specific research areas relevant to CIHR Institutes, Initiatives and Partners, and applications that align with those areas may be selected for funding – without having to re-apply. Prizes are supplemental grant funds to support research, they are not a personal award.”

Note that these are updated each year and appear only in the full application (not at registration). It is possible to submit a grant without filling in the Priority Announcement section, as its optional, so you need to actively seek these out. For example, some institutes create $100,000 1-year bridge grants for those grants that just missed funding; these are listed in the Priority Announcement and can range from quite general to highly specific. You can submit to more than 1 Priority Announcement- you are required to fill out a relevance form for each Priority Announcement selected. These are awarded to highest scoring unfunded grants in the competition that have relevance to the particular Priority Announcement.

What to Put in the Summary of Progress

The Summary of Progress, uploaded as a 2-page PDF,

“is a narrative that will allow you to describe the reason you are requesting funding for your proposed project in the context of your broader research activities. It is not expected that applicants will provide a detailed accounting of their research history but rather, only what is relevant to the current application. It should include progress made on your research to date (including contextualizing research activities, contributions and impacts that support your current application) and any impacts on the progress of your research. Tables, figures or graphs are not permitted in the Summary of Progress. It is suggested to not duplicate the information found in your ‘Significant Contributions’ section or CV. Additionally, please note that all information necessary to adjudicate the science of your research proposal must be found in the research proposal (i.e., the Summary of Progress is not to be used as an extension to your proposal).

“When contextualizing the amount requested vis-à-vis your funding profile, you do not need to list all grants currently or previously held or duplicate what is already found in your CCV but rather include information that helps inform and convince reviewers that this funding is needed and how it fits in to the overall research program. Any pending applications under review (CIHR or other source of funding) related to the current submission should be indicated in the Summary of Progress to help reviewers understand any potential funding overlap. It will be incumbent on the applicant to illustrate clearly to reviewers why the requested funds are needed, how they are distinct from the funds currently held, and how they will advance research.”

Including Sex and Gender Considerations in your Research Proposal

Additional details from  CIHR  are quoted below in italics, for reference.

“In their evaluation of the application, peer reviewers assess whether or not sex- and gender-based analysis (SGBA) is a strength, weakness, or not applicable; this is to be reflected within their written evaluation and the overall score assigned to the application.” 

Reviewers are instructed to not only look at the specific text box on sex and gender, but to note whether sex and gender considerations, if relevant, are incorporated into the main proposal as part of the research plan.

Information Sessions

CIHR will be hosting the following webinars to support participants with the requirements of the funding opportunity “ Project Grant Spring 2024 ” and to answer questions on how to apply. The sessions are 60 minutes long and registration is not required.  

• Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 11:00 am ET |  Join  (English)
• Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 1:00 pm ET |  Join  (French)
• Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 11:00 am ET |  Join  (French)
• Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 1:00 pm ET |  Join  (English)

Main navigation

• Graduate Students
• Faculty & Staff

​Canada Graduate Scholarships - Master's (NSERC/SSHRC & CIHR)

**Reminder-  Indigenous Scholars Awards and Supplements Pilot Initiative ** The Indigenous Scholars Awards and Supplements Pilot Initiative will provide financial support to meritorious Indigenous students who have applied to the  Canada Graduate Scholars—Master’s program  (CGS M). Meritorious applications include all applications that have received the status “Offered” or “Alternate” in the Research Portal (see selection process for the CGS M program for more information): Offered: CGS M applicants who are offered and accept a CGS M award and who are eligible for the Indigenous Scholars Award will keep the CGS M award and will be offered the Indigenous Scholars Supplement, to the limit of available funding. Alternate: CGS M applicants who are not offered a CGS M award but whose application is deemed meritorious by being deemed an alternate candidate and who are eligible for the Indigenous Scholars Award will be offered, to the limit of available funding, both the Indigenous Scholars Award and the Indigenous Scholars Supplement. Value & Duration Indigenous Scholars Awards : $17,500 (one year non-renewable) Supplements : $5,000 (one year non-renewable) Deadline Student - December 1 (8:00 p.m. ET) - Submission of online application to Research Portal. (via the CGS Master program) Eligibility Applicants must:  be eligible to apply to the CGS M program; self-identify as Indigenous for the purposes of this initiative;  and have had their application deemed meritorious in the CGS M review process. and have had their application deemed meritorious in the CGS M review process. How to Apply  (special added instructions) Applicants who meet the eligibility requirements for this funding stream must apply through the   CGS M program . (See "How to Apply" in the CGSM section below) provide a one-page (3,000 characters maximum) personal statement; **Reminder -  Black student researchers Initiative ** The Government of Canada has deployed additional funds to increase direct support for Black student researchers. CGS M applicants who self-identify as Black and provide consent in their application to be considered for funds designated for specific groups may be able to receive this funding through a scholarship as part of this initiative. Each agency has a limited number of additional CGS M awards reserved for this initiative.  For more information, consult the Frequently asked questions about the new Black scholars funding web page . Meritorious applications include all applications that have received the status  “Alternate” in the Research Portal (see selection process for the CGS M program for more information): Alternate: CGS M applicants who are not offered a CGS M award but whose application is deemed meritorious by being deemed an alternate candidate and who are eligible for the Black student researcher initiative maybe offered, to the limit of available funding, a CGS M award. Value & Duration Black student researchers Initiative -CGS M : $17,500 (one year non-renewable) Deadline Student - December 1 (8:00 p.m. ET) - Submission of online application to Research Portal. (via the CGS Master program) Eligibility Applicants must:  be eligible to apply to the CGS M program; self-identify as a Black scholar for the purposes of this initiative;  and have had their application deemed meritorious in the CGS M review process. How to Apply  (special added instructions) Applicants who meet the eligibility requirements for this funding stream must apply through the   CGS M program . (See "How to Apply" in the CGSM section below) After the fall deadline of the regular application process (01 December 2023), all applicants will be asked to provide self-identification information via a questionnaire. Applicants who self-identify as Black and provide their consent to be considered for funds targeted towards specific groups will be eligible.

CGS Master's: 

Value & duration.

$17,500 (one year non-renewable)

Student  - December 1 (8:00 p.m. ET) - Submission of online application to Research Portal .

*Please be sure to communicate with the Academic Unit regarding admissions process, deadlines and requirements.

Eligibility

To be eligible to apply, you must:

• be a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident of Canada or a Protected Person * under subsection 95(2) of the  Immigration and Refugee Protection Act  (Canada) as of the application deadline date. * NOTE: Protected persons must select "Refugee" under Citizenship in the Canadian Common CV.
• be enrolled in, have applied for, or will apply for full-time admission *  to an eligible graduate program at the master’s or doctoral level at a Canadian institution with a CGS M allocation.  * Note: Applicants who are not currently enrolled in their intended graduate program must submit an application for admission at McGill University by the deadline set for the intended graduate program
• the master’s program for which you are requesting funding; or
• the doctoral program for which you are requesting funding if you were admitted into a doctoral program directly from your bachelor’s program (you were never registered in a master’s program, or you are registered in a combined Master’s-PhD program); or
• a master’s program, but are requesting funding for a doctoral program (an example is a student who is fast-tracking from a master’s to a doctoral program within 12 months of starting their Master’s and is seeking funding for the first 12 months of their doctoral program); 
• or between  4 and 12 months  of full-time study (or full-time equivalent) in an eligible master’s program for which the degree requirements will be completed before activation of the award, allowing it to be activated during the first 12 months of the subsequent doctoral program for which you are requesting funding
• not have previously held a CGS M;
• achieved a first-class grade point average, as determined by McGill, in each of the last two completed years of study (full-time equivalent) 
• submit a maximum of ONE CGS M application per year (the Research Portal will allow the application to be submitted to up to three universities – refer to CGS M program resources ).

Interdisciplinary Research

Students seeking support for interdisciplinary research in areas covered by more than one of the granting agencies  NSERC ,  CIHR  and  SSHRC  (for example, research in Biomedical Engineering) should refer to  “  Selecting the Appropriate Federal Granting Agency” .

Subject Matter Eligibility: G uidelines for the eligibility of applications related to health

How to Apply

There is one single application platform for all CGS Master’s students. Applicants are required to categorize their proposed “field of research” (i.e., health CIHR, natural sciences and engineering NSERC, social sciences and humanities SSHRC). For questions on how to categorize a proposal, consult with the granting agency webpage at  Selecting the Appropriate Federal Granting Agency  well before the deadline.

The Research Portal will instruct applicants to select up to three universities where they wish to hold the award. Please consult the  CGS Master's program site for more details. 

The online application via the “ Research Portal ”  is hosted by NSERC and on their website.  Students should only submit their applications to universities where they are currently enrolled or where they anticipate submitting an application for admission.

• Application tutorials:
• How to apply using the Research Portal

Offers from McGill will only be made to students who will be admitted to an eligible Master’s program of study at McGill. These offers are not transferable to another institution.

Be sure to read the Agency webpage  Instructions .

Additional Resources

• CGS Master's  Website
• Program Overview
• McGill's Fall 2023 information presentation
• NSERC is hosting the following question and answer sessions for the CGS M program  follow the link for Nov 2023 dates

Required Details & Documents

Full application form on the Research Portal that must include:

• Field of Research that is appropriate
• McGill MUST be indicated as one of the Proposed Host Organizations with correct Faculty and Academic Unit/ Department / Division name
• Outline of proposed research - uploaded by applicant in correct format

One (1)  page for Proposal. Proposal may NOT extend into next page AT ALL .

One (1)  page for Bibliography/Citations.

** Be SURE to adhere to ALL specified formatting; especially with respect to number of pages permitted per document or document section. Non conforming formatting may render application inadmissible.

• Up-to-date official transcripts of all undergraduate and graduate studies must be included in the application, including transcripts for the C URRENT FALL SEMESTER.   Transcripts must be accompanied by their respective transcript key/legend.

How to deal with McGill pdf transcripts for upload

Downloadable McGill Transcript KEY

• Two Reference Assessments - A tutorial video for  Canada Graduate Scholarships Master’s Instructions for Completing a Reference Assessment Form  is now available. Please share this with your referee.
• Canadian Common CV -This must be validated for the correct funding agency.  Instructions for completing a Canadian Common CV

Downloadable Application Checklist

Post-Award Information

If you have been awarded the above fellowship, please refer to Accepting, activating and maintaining your award . Among other items, this page contains links to respective agency Award Holder's Guide, Payment Activation forms etc.

The deadlines for these items are as follows:

Please note that should the student status change in any way during the course of the award, it is the responsibility of the awardee to notify the Academic Unit, GPS Funding Unit, and the Agency.

For more information, pl ease contact your  Academic Unit  or consult the  CGS Master's Program webpage .

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License . Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, McGill University .

Department and University Information

Graduate and postdoctoral studies.

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca

Common menu bar links

• Français

Home > Students and fellows > Postgraduate programs > Canada Graduate Scholarships – Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplements

Institutional links

The NSERC website will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday, April 6 due to a server update. We expect service to resume the same day.

Canada Graduate Scholarships – Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplements

The Canada Graduate Scholarships – Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplements (CGS-MSFSS) are available to Canadian citizens, permanent residents of Canada or Protected Persons under subsection 95(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Canada) who hold a Canada Graduate Scholarship (CGS) at the master’s or doctoral level, or a Vanier CGS at the doctoral level.

Accessibility notice: If you cannot access the following content, contact the online services helpdesk by email at webapp@nserc-crsng.gc.ca or by telephone at 1-855-275-2861. Indicate the email address and telephone number where you can be reached.

Overview and objectives

The Canada Graduate Scholarships – Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplements (CGS-MSFSS) support high-calibre Canadian graduate students in building global linkages and international networks through the pursuit of exceptional research experiences at research institutions abroad. By accessing international scientific research and training, CGS-MSFSS recipients will contribute to strengthening the potential for collaboration between Canadian and foreign institutions.

Supplements of up to $6,000 are available to active CGS (master’s or doctoral) or eligible Vanier CGS holders to help offset the costs of undertaking research studies outside Canada for a defined period. A total of 250 awards are available each year and are divided among the three agencies—the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). This reflects the distribution of CGS and eligible Vanier CGS across the health-related disciplines, the natural sciences and engineering and the social sciences and humanities: 45 for CIHR, 80 for NSERC and 125 for SSHRC. Additional supplements may be awarded should funds become available.

Eligibility

To be eligible to apply for this supplement , you must.

• undertake your proposed trip abroad no earlier than the competition deadline date
• not hold, or have held, any other CGS-MSFSS during the course of your graduate studies

To remain eligible during the research study period abroad, you must

• hold an active CGS at the time your research study period abroad starts
• be registered in a graduate research studies program at a Canadian institution for the duration of your research study period abroad
• take up the award within one year of receiving the notice of award for the CGS-MSFSS
• return to complete your degree at your Canadian institution

Duration and start date of research study period abroad

The minimum length of stay abroad that the CGS-MSFSS will support is two months and the maximum duration of support is six months.

The start of your research study period abroad must be after the application deadline date, but within one year of receiving the notice of the award. Should you leave Canada before the results are announced, the agencies are not liable for any costs incurred if the application is not funded or is deemed ineligible.

A supplement must begin before the end date of your CGS or Vanier CGS and cannot be taken up during an interruption of a CGS or Vanier CGS award.

Note: The CGS award must be active at the time the research study period abroad begins.

Host institutions and supervisors

Eligible host institutions include foreign universities, inter-university research centres, international or national research institutes or laboratories, or other institutions with a research mandate.

A host supervisor must be a researcher affiliated with and employed full time at an eligible host institution. Research assistants and postdoctoral fellows are not eligible to be host supervisors. If the host supervisor’s primary place of employment is outside academia, they must demonstrate that they have supervised graduate student researchers.

The choice of host institution and host supervisor must be justified in your application. The application must also explain how the research study period abroad will further your research goals.

Note: If you are unsure about the eligibility of a particular host supervisor or host institution, contact the respective agency prior to submitting your application.

Award value and eligible expenses

The value of the CGS-MSFSS is up to $6,000, based on the information and budget justification provided in the application. The supplements are non-renewable.

The supplement will be paid to you through the Canadian institution where the CGS award is held. 

The supplement will cover costs associated with travel, living and other expenses (such as accommodation, meals, tuition, travel or study visas, insurance and other necessary costs) unrelated to research during the research study period abroad. Costs directly related to the research must be covered by other funding sources.

Selection process

Completed applications must be submitted to the faculty of graduate studies (or its equivalent) at the institution where your CGS award is held.

For CIHR candidates, if your CGS award is held at an affiliate institution, your CGS-MSFSS application must be submitted to that affiliate institution.

The agencies will review the applications received from institutions for eligibility and completeness, and supplements will be awarded through the institutions on a first-come, first-served basis.

Late and incomplete applications will be rejected.

Selection criteria

The internal selection process and review procedures adopted by the institution must evaluate applications using the selection criteria listed below:

• the linkage between the CGS research goals, the activities outlined for the proposed research study period abroad and your future research/career goals, considering
• the significance, feasibility and merit of proposed activities at the foreign institution
• the justification for the choice of host institution(s) and/or host supervisor(s)
• the relevance and anticipated benefits of the proposed activities to your current graduate-degree training

The institution must notify you of the results of its internal selection process.

Application procedures

Each agency has its own application form , instructions and consent forms, and care should be taken to ensure that the appropriate form is used.

You will be required to provide the following information:

• the name and contact information of your CGS or Vanier CGS research supervisor and of the proposed host supervisor
• the name and location of the proposed host institution
• a description of your intended research activities during your research study period abroad (including objectives, methodology, timelines and expected outcomes) and how they relate to your main graduate research topic, and a description of the potential benefits you will derive from the host institution in relation to your current research objectives (maximum two pages)
• a budget that provides estimates for costs of travel, living and other expenses during your research study period abroad
• a letter from your CGS or Vanier CGS research supervisor detailing their support for your research study period abroad and confirming that your proposed research aligns with the research from your CGS award (maximum one page)
• a letter from your host supervisor detailing their support for your research study period abroad and the resources they have available—financial (if any), supervision time, equipment, library access, etc.—to support your planned research activities (maximum one page)

Notification of results

The agencies will notify you and the institutions of the results within two months following receipt of applications. CGS-MSFSS funds will be paid to the institutions, which will administer the supplements for the award holders on behalf of the agencies.

Upon receiving a CGS-MSFSS offer from one of the agencies, CGS-MSFSS recipients will be expected to abide by the terms of the award holder’s guide . This guide outlines the responsibilities of the award holder, including the steps required to make changes to the award and the requirement to submit an activity report following the research study period abroad.

CIHR Email: CGSMSFSS-SEEMSBESC@cihr-irsc.gc.ca

NSERC Email: schol@nserc-crsng.gc.ca

SSHRC Email: fellowships@sshrc-crsh.gc.ca

Jointly administered by