Policies

Appeals of Decisions Based on Peer Review

Objective

To maintain the fairness of its peer review process, SSHRC has an appeal process that provides applicants with the opportunity to seek reconsideration of a funding decision.

Policy

Decisions may be appealed on the following grounds only:

• where there is evidence of procedural error in the adjudication process; or
• where there is evidence that a committee based its decision on factual error.

Applicants may address differences of scholarly assessment with peer review committees and/or assessors in a subsequent application. The council will not accept appeals where the adjudication committee has made a reasonable attempt to judge fairly the merit of an application. Similarly, SSHRC does not permit appeals based on the composition of adjudication committees or on the amount awarded.

Definitions

Procedural error include both departures from the council's policies and procedures regarding, for example, conflict of interest, and any failures by SSHRC’s staff to provide the prescribed information to the adjudication committee.

In those programs where external assessments of proposals are employed, SSHRC makes every effort to secure external assessments from knowledgeable and objective reviewers. In certain cases, however, this is not possible. Under such circumstances, the adjudication committee is asked to give the application an in-depth review and the lack of external assessments does not constitute grounds for appeal.

Factual error exists where there is compelling evidence that the adjudication committee based its decision to not recommend an award on a conclusion that is contrary to information provided by the applicant in the application. This does not include disagreements over interpretation or analysis of facts by adjudication committee members or external assessors. Evidence of factual error would, for example, be a committee statement that an application was not recommended due to the applicant's lack of any peer-reviewed publications, where, in fact, the application lists several publications universally acknowledged to be peer-reviewed.

Procedure

Applicants who have concerns about the review of their application are invited to discuss them first with the responsible program officer, who will attempt to resolve their concerns.

If, after discussion with the program officer, an applicant still considers that there has been a procedural or factual error that caused a negative decision on their application, he or she may submit a formal letter of appeal to the Vice-President, Grants and Fellowships, or the Vice-President, Partnerships, depending on the program in question. The letter must identify the procedural or factual error.

Appeals must be received or postmarked no later than sixty (60) days after the postmark on the letter of decision sent to the applicant.

No new supporting documents that were not included in the original application may be included in the appeal.

Upon receipt of the letter of appeal, the vice-president will refer it the appropriate division for action. Where grounds for an appeal are confirmed, the letter of appeal will be referred to an appeals committee well-versed in the SSHRC peer-review process for an impartial assessment and recommendation. The committee, composed of former SSHRC adjudication committee chairs or members, will review the original application, any external assessments, the adjudication committee’s comments, and the appellant’s letter of appeal. The appeals committee may, at its discretion, recommend that the decision of the adjudication committee be upheld and the appeal denied, or may recommend in favour of the appellant. A favourable decision may not result in a grant being awarded depending on where they are ranked and funds available.

The final decision on an appeal is made by the vice-president. Appeals are normally resolved within two to three months after they are received by SSHRC

Other avenues of redress

For programs that use external assessors, applicants may submit, with their application, a letter to the program officer naming potential assessors who, in their opinion, would not be likely to provide an unbiased review of their application. Applicants must provide a justification for excluding potential assessors. While program officers cannot be bound by this information, they will take it into consideration in the selection of external assessors.