Selection criteria ratings for the review of Stage 1 applications
On this page
Using the matrices
For each criterion, the reviewer is asked to consider relevant elements, which may include a few, several or all elements outlined in the matrix. Like the selection criteria descriptions, the ratings descriptions are not meant to be exhaustive. The matrices are intended to be used as a guide. Unless otherwise noted, a proposal does not have to be rated Exceptional against all elements to receive an Exceptional rating for the criterion overall. It is left to the discretion of the reviewer to balance assessments of individual elements and to provide an overall rating per criterion.
For each of the evaluation criteria, the matrices indicate four ratings: Exceptional, Very Good, Fair and Poor. However, members can use a seven-point scale in their assessments, selecting ratings that fall between the four described. The seven-point rating scale for evaluation criteria is as follows:
- Exceptional (described)
- Excellent (between Exceptional and Very Good)
- Very Good (described)
- Good (between Very Good and Fair)
- Fair (described)
- Inferior (between Fair and Poor)
- Poor (described)
Scientific and Technical Review
Criterion—Capacity: hub’s response to the Strategy’s priorities and emerging public health threats
For information on how the rating scale is used in assessments, refer to Using the matrices.
Proposals that meet the expectations for hub Capacity include, but are not limited to:
| Exceptional | Very good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A program of research, including objectives, priorities and research themes, that articulates a clear and ambitious vision in support of the Strategy (also assessed by the Strategic Review Committee) | A clear and highly ambitious vision is presented. The program of research is highly appropriate and demonstrates significant alignment with all three CBRF-BRIF strategic objectives. |
A clear and ambitious vision is presented. The program of research is appropriate and demonstrates alignment with CBRF-BRIF strategic objectives. |
A limited vision is presented. The program of research demonstrates some alignment with CBRF-BRIF strategic objectives. |
A generic vision is presented. It is not possible to determine the degree of alignment between CBRF-BRIF strategic objectives and the program of research presented. |
| Ability of the hub to lead and mobilize a diverse and inclusive research community to pursue a program of research and research training, in alignment with the Strategy | A highly ambitious plan to attract and mobilize the research community from all levels and all sectors to deliver a program of research that is inclusive of diverse approaches and perspectives from the life sciences and biomanufacturing sector. |
An ambitious plan to attract and mobilize the research community from all levels and all sectors to deliver a program of research that is inclusive of diverse approaches and perspectives from the life sciences and biomanufacturing sector. |
A limited plan to attract and mobilize the research community from most levels and most sectors to deliver a program of research that is inclusive of some of the diverse approaches and perspectives from the life sciences and biomanufacturing sector. |
A generic plan to attract and mobilize the research community from some levels and some sectors to deliver a program of research that is inclusive of a limited number of approaches and perspectives from the life sciences and biomanufacturing sector. |
Criterion—Existing critical mass: opportunity to leverage existing and planned expertise, training capacity, infrastructure and investments
For information on how the rating scale is used in assessments, refer to Using the matrices.
Proposals that demonstrate existing critical mass necessary to leverage collaboration across the biomanufacturing ecosystem include, but are not limited to:
| Exceptional | Very good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description of existing capacity, infrastructure and investments | The scope, quality and availability of the facilities and infrastructure and financial and/or in-kind contributions and how they effectively support the hub’s program of research are clearly evident in the proposal. Any gaps are addressed. |
The scope, quality and availability of the facilities and infrastructure and financial and/or in-kind contributions and how they sufficiently support the hub’s program of research are evident in the proposal. Most gaps are addressed. |
The scope, quality and availability of the facilities and infrastructure and financial and/or in-kind contributions and how they support most of the hub’s program of research are somewhat evident in the proposal. Some gaps are addressed. |
The scope, quality and availability of the facilities and infrastructure and financial and/or in-kind contributions and how they support the hub’s program of research are not evident in the proposal. Gaps are not addressed. |
| Description of existing training programs that support the Strategy | A rich training environment provides a wide breadth of skills development for the life sciences and biomanufacturing sector in alignment with the Strategy. Industry-relevant training is very strongly integrated. |
A training environment provides a variety of skills development for the life sciences and biomanufacturing sectors in alignment with the Strategy. Industry-relevant training is strongly integrated. |
A training environment provides some skills development for the life sciences and biomanufacturing sectors in alignment with the Strategy. Industry-relevant training is integrated in a limited way. |
A training environment provides limited skills development for the life sciences and biomanufacturing sectors in alignment with the Strategy. Industry-relevant training is not integrated. |
| Total research funding in the area and track record of research outputs/outcomes | The funding history and track record demonstrate significant capacity to attract funding. Impact from past life science and biomanufacturing projects is significant. |
The funding history and track record demonstrate effective capacity to attract funding. Impact from past life science and biomanufacturing projects is strong. |
The funding history and track record demonstrate limited capacity to attract funding. Impact from past life science and biomanufacturing projects is adequate. |
The funding history and track record do not sufficiently demonstrate the ability to attract funding. Impact from past life science and biomanufacturing projects is limited. |
| Scope, composition, excellence and diversity of the scientific team | The proposal clearly demonstrates that the scientific team has very strong expertise from across sectors, and in all relevant disciplines, to ensure future initiatives align with the hub vision and program of research. |
The proposal demonstrates that the scientific team has sufficient expertise from across sectors, and in all relevant disciplines, to ensure future initiatives align with the hub vision and program of research. |
The proposal demonstrates that the scientific team has some expertise from across sectors, and in most relevant disciplines, to ensure future initiatives align with the hub vision and program of research. |
The proposal does not demonstrate that the scientific team has the required expertise from across sectors, and in relevant disciplines, to ensure future initiatives align with the hub vision and program of research. |
| Description of the technology transfer environment and the industry engagement effort, including information about past record in technology transfer, commercialization and other knowledge translation initiatives | The proposal clearly demonstrates that the hub environment will strongly support technology transfer and related ongoing activities to strengthen industry engagement. |
The proposal demonstrates that the hub environment will support technology transfer and related activities to strengthen or maintain industry engagement. |
The proposal demonstrates that the hub environment will somewhat support technology transfer and related activities to maintain industry engagement. |
The proposal does not demonstrate that the hub environment will support technology transfer or pursue activities related to industry engagement. |
Criterion—Cooperation: degree of existing and potential collaborations among partners within the hub
For information on how the rating scale is used in assessments, refer to Using the matrices.
Proposals that demonstrate the degree of existing and potential collaboration within the hub include, but are not limited to:
| Exceptional | Very good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description of the governance structure | The governance structure is highly appropriate in size, inclusivity and robustness for the proposed hub, including sound plans to manage all aspects related to delivering the vision and program of research. |
The governance structure is appropriate in size, inclusivity and robustness for the proposed hub, including satisfactory plans to manage all aspects related to delivering the vision and program of research. |
The governance structure may be appropriate in size, inclusivity and robustness for the proposed hub, including basic plans to manage most aspects related to delivering the vision and program of research. |
The governance structure is not appropriate in size, inclusivity and robustness for the proposed hub, including generic plans to manage some aspects related to delivering the vision and program of research. |
| Description of the collaborative, multidisciplinary approach, including existing and potential partners/collaborators and the strengths they bring to the hub | The approach fully integrates and uses, to best advantage, the discipline-specific expertise and strengths brought by existing and potential partners. |
The approach integrates the discipline-specific expertise and strengths brought by existing and potential partners. |
The approach integrates most of the discipline-specific expertise and strengths brought by most existing and potential partners. |
The approach includes some of the discipline-specific expertise and strengths brought by existing and potential partners, but is not fully integrated. |
| Track record of productive collaboration between partners within the hub | An extensive record of productive collaborations among hub partners clearly demonstrates the potential for future research and co-creation within the hub. |
A strong record of productive collaborations among hub partners demonstrates the potential for future research and co-creation within the hub. |
A record of productive collaborations among some hub partners demonstrates some potential for future research and co-creation within the hub. |
There is a limited record of productive collaborations among hub partners, so much so that potential for future research and co-creation is not clear. |
| Outreach plans for new partners, researchers, end users | An effective plan for active engagement with new partners, researchers and users of research outputs and outcomes demonstrates superior knowledge mobilization capacity within the hub. |
A plan for engagement with new partners, researchers and users of research outputs and outcomes demonstrates strong knowledge mobilization capacity within the hub. |
A basic plan for limited engagement with new partners, researchers and users of research outputs and outcomes demonstrates some knowledge mobilization capacity within the hub. |
A generic plan that includes insufficient engagement with new partners, researchers and users of research outputs and outcomes demonstrates limited knowledge mobilization capacity within the hub. |
Criterion—Receptor capacity: ability of the hub to support public and private vaccine, therapeutics, and diagnostic developers, and develop commercially viable vaccines and therapeutics
For information on how the rating scale is used in assessments, refer to Using the matrices.
Proposals that meet the expectations for hub receptor capacity are demonstrated by, but not limited to:
| Exceptional | Very good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Track record in R&D (such as patents and licences, drug approvals, vaccines or diagnostic tools developed, clinical trials, new practices, contracts with non-academic partners) | An extensive record of translational R&D activities clearly demonstrates the hub’s ability to support development of commercially viable vaccines and therapeutics. |
A strong record of translational R&D activities demonstrates the hub’s ability to support development of commercially viable vaccines and therapeutics. |
A record of translational R&D activities demonstrates that the hub may have the ability to support development of commercially viable vaccines and therapeutics. |
A limited record of translational R&D activities does not sufficiently demonstrate the hub’s ability to support development of commercially viable vaccines and therapeutics. |
| Partnerships with industry and commercialization organizations | An extensive record of partnerships with organizations from many sectors demonstrates increased uptake of research outcomes in terms of commercialization and scaled-up production of vaccines and therapeutics. |
A strong record of partnerships with organizations from different sectors demonstrates uptake of research outcomes in terms of commercialization and scaled-up production of vaccines and therapeutics. |
A record of partnerships with organizations from more than one sector demonstrates limited uptake of research outcomes in terms of commercialization and scaled-up production of vaccines and therapeutics. |
A record of partnerships with organizations from other sectors is lacking. A record of commercialization and scaled-up production of vaccines and therapeutics is very limited. |
Criterion—Multidisciplinary: value of a multidisciplinary approach to the program of research and how the disciplinary expertise will be included
For information on how the rating scale is used in assessments, refer to Using the matrices.
Proposals that meet the expectations for a multidisciplinary, multisectoral approach include, but are not limited to:
| Exceptional | Very good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ability to support research projects under the mandates of the three agencies | There is clear demonstration that partners co-created or co-designed the program of research and clearly demonstrated ability of the hub to support projects under the mandates of the three agencies. |
There is sufficient demonstration that partners co-created or co-designed the program of research and sufficiently demonstrated ability of the hub to support projects under the mandates of the three agencies. |
There is limited demonstration that partners co-created or co-designed the program of research and limited demonstration of the ability of the hub to support projects under the mandates of the three agencies. |
There is lack of partner involvement demonstrated in the design of the program of research and insufficient demonstration of the ability of the hub to support projects under mandates of the three agencies. |
| Inclusion of different disciplines and the added value to the program of research | The impact of incorporating multidisciplinary and multisectoral perspectives in the design of the program of research is clearly demonstrated and the added value is significant. |
The impact of incorporating multidisciplinary and multisectoral perspectives in the design of the program of research is demonstrated and the added value is evident. |
The impact of incorporating multidisciplinary and multisectoral perspectives in the design of the program of research is partially demonstrated and the added value is somewhat evident. |
The impact of incorporating multidisciplinary and multisectoral perspectives in the design of the program of research is insufficiently demonstrated and the added value is not evident. |
| Demonstration of the required expertise to deliver on the proposed program of research (also assessed by the Strategic Review Committee) | The collective expertise of the participants within the research hub is highly appropriate to successfully carry out the hub’s multidisciplinary approach. |
The collective expertise of the participants within the research hub is appropriate to successfully carry out the hub’s multidisciplinary approach. |
The collective expertise of the participants within the research hub is adequate to carry out the hub’s multidisciplinary approach. |
The collective expertise of the participants within the research hub is insufficient to successfully carry out the hub’s multidisciplinary approach. |
Criterion—EDI and ECR: degree to which the hub and its partners demonstrate their commitment to EDI and support to ECRs
For information on how the rating scale is used in assessments, refer to Using the matrices.
Proposals that meet the expectations of incorporating best practices and active measures to support equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) and early career researchers (ECRs) include, but are not limited to:
| Exceptional | Very good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description of how EDI principles and support to ECRs are embedded in the hub’s governance structure and in the project selection process | There is in-depth understanding of EDI considerations / systemic barriers in terms of organizational structures, research teams and selection processes. The proposal identifies multiple concrete practices related to described barriers and explains how the practices will be implemented and the expected impact on EDI. ECRs are included in the team and integrated in a meaningful way. Plans are in place to support leadership and applied research skills development across all relevant sectors. |
There is strong understanding of EDI considerations / systemic barriers in terms of organizational structures, research teams and selection processes. The proposal identifies at least one concrete practice related to each barrier described and explains how the practices will be implemented and the expected impact on EDI. ECRs are included in the team and integrated in a meaningful way. Plans are in place to support leadership and applied research skills development across most relevant sectors. |
There is some understanding of EDI considerations / systemic barriers in terms of organizational structures, research teams and selection processes. The proposal identifies some concrete practices without relating them to barriers described or making clear how they will be implemented, and the expected impact on EDI is not sufficiently clear. ECRs are included in the team, but not fully integrated. Limited plans are in place to support leadership and applied research skills development across some relevant sectors. |
The understanding of EDI considerations appears generic in terms of organizational structures, research teams and selection processes. Concrete practices are not identified or don’t relate to identified barriers. Meaningful integration of ECRs is not demonstrated. Plans to support leadership and applied research skills development across relevant sectors are lacking. |
Strategic Review
Criterion—Capacity: hub’s response to the Strategy’s priorities and emerging public health threats
For information on how the rating scale is used in assessments, refer to Using the matrices.
Proposals that meet the expectations for hub Capacity include, but are not limited to:
| Exceptional | Very good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A high-level program of research, including objectives, priorities and research themes, that articulates a clear and ambitious vision in support of the Strategy (also assessed for scientific and technical merit) | A clear and highly ambitious vision is presented. The program of research is highly appropriate and demonstrates significant alignment with all three CBRF-BRIF strategic objectives. |
A clear and ambitious vision is presented. The program of research is appropriate and demonstrates alignment with CBRF-BRIF strategic objectives. |
A limited vision is presented. The program of research demonstrates some alignment with CBRF-BRIF strategic objectives. |
A generic vision is presented. It is not possible to determine the degree of alignment between CBRF-BRIF strategic objectives and the program of research presented. |
Criterion—Multidisciplinary: value of a multidisciplinary approach to the program of research and how the disciplinary expertise will be included
For information on how the rating scale is used in assessments, refer to Using the matrices.
Proposals that meet the expectations for a multidisciplinary, multisectoral approach include, but are not limited to:
| Exceptional | Very good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demonstration of the required expertise to deliver on the proposed program of research with a multidisciplinary and multisectoral approach (also assessed for scientific and technical merit) | The collective expertise of the participants within the research hub is highly appropriate to successfully carry out the hub’s multidisciplinary approach. |
The collective expertise of the participants within the research hub is appropriate to successfully carry out the hub’s multidisciplinary approach. |
The collective expertise of the participants within the research hub is adequate to carry out the hub’s multidisciplinary approach. |
The collective expertise of the participants within the research hub is insufficient to successfully carry out the hub’s multidisciplinary approach. |
- Date modified: