2026 Canada Excellence Research Chairs Competition—Assessment Guidelines for the Multidisciplinary Selection Board

On this page

  1. Purpose of the guidelines
  2. Background and program objectives
  3. Overview of the 2026 CERC competition 5
  4. Principles of merit review
  5. Roles and responsibilities
  6. Equity, diversity and inclusion
  7. Indigenous research
  8. Research security
  9. Budget
  10. How to access applications for review
  11. Peer review process
  12. Multidisciplinary selection board meeting
  13. Handling documents used in peer review
  14. Legal and ethical information

1. Purpose of the guidelines

This document is a guide for external reviewers for the 2026 Canada Excellence Research Chairs (CERC) competition. It describes activities to be undertaken, and outlines the policies, guidelines and deliverables relevant to these activities.

On behalf of the Tri-agency Institutional Programs Secretariat (TIPS), we would like to thank you for participating in the peer review process for this program. The program, the TIPS Steering Committee and the scientific community appreciate the efforts of dedicated volunteers like you, who generously offer their time and expertise.

2. Background and program objectives

The CERC program supports Canadian universities in their efforts to build on Canada’s growing reputation as a global leader in research and innovation.

The program is funded by the three federal research funding agencies: the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). The program offers eligible Canadian, degree-granting institutions an opportunity to recruit the top-tier of world-class researchers working in the Government of Canada’s Science, Technology and Innovation (ST&I) priority areas.

The objectives of the program are to:

  • strengthen Canada’s ability to attract the world’s top researchers, in order to be at the leading edge of breakthroughs in ST&I priority areas expected to generate social and economic benefits for Canadians;
  • help Canada build a critical mass of expertise in ST&I priority areas identified by the Government of Canada;
  • create a competitive environment to help Canadian institutions, in their pursuit of research excellence, attract a cadre of world-leading researchers; and
  • contribute to branding Canada as a location of choice for world-leading research, science and technology development, alongside other federal programs with similar objectives.

For details on the 2026 competition, including eligibility requirements, see the CERC funding opportunity.

3. Overview of the 2026 CERC competition

The program will use a rigorous and competitive peer review process to assess the excellence of the CERC applications. All applications submitted to the competition, regardless of award value and/or career stage of the nominee, will be evaluated using the same selection criteria.

The different award values are intended to allow participation from a greater range of research disciplines while also supporting chairholders’ teams, which include students, highly qualified personnel and early- and mid-career researchers. There is no established distribution between the two award values within the program’s budget envelope. The two award values acknowledge the varying costs of research objectives. The award value that is applied for must be justified in terms of research costs.

Diversity of perspectives is important, and the program encourages research proposals from any discipline in the fields of health, natural sciences and engineering and/or social sciences and humanities.

4. Principles of peer review

San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment

Canada’s federal research funding agencies (tri-agency) have signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). This reaffirms their commitment to excellence in research evaluation and the importance of knowledge mobilization. DORA is a global initiative to support the development and promotion of best practices in the assessment of scholarly research that go beyond journal publication as an indicator for research output. When assessing evidence of research excellence, a variety of research contributions, including both traditional academic publications and other kinds of services and relevant experience should be taken into consideration.

Fairness

Success of the CERC peer review process depends on the willingness and ability of all reviewers to be fair and reasonable; to exercise rigorous judgment; and to understand and consider the specific context of each application in a balanced way.

Bias

All reviewers are asked to consistently guard against the possibility of unconscious bias influencing the assessment process, whether this bias is based on, for example, a school of thought, fundamental versus applied research, certain subdisciplines, areas of or approach to research (including emerging ones), size or reputation of an institution or identifications such as the age, race, gender identity or sexual orientation of the nominee.

Measures will be taken as part of the peer review process to limit unconscious bias. Selection board members will be required to complete training on limiting unconscious bias.

Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy

The Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy of the Federal Research Funding Organizations ensures the effective management of conflict of interest of any participant in the peer review process and ensures the confidentiality of personal and commercial information submitted to the program during the review process.

Conflict of interest

Reviewers are responsible for evaluating the merits of applications assigned to them, except when there is a conflict of interest.

A conflict of interest is a conflict between a person’s duties and responsibilities regarding the peer review process, and that person’s private, professional, business or public interests. For further details on real, perceived or potential conflict of interest, refer to the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy.

Confidentiality

The information included in the applications is protected by the Privacy Act, the Access to Information Act and the Policy on Government Security, and is provided for the purposes of review only. Details of the application, scoring, discussions and recommendations for a specific application are confidential and must never be divulged. Only program staff can release information. Under no circumstances should reviewers disclose their review to anyone; this also applies when the competition is over and the award recipients are announced.

Multidisciplinary selection board members must not communicate any information related to the review of a specific application or offer to institutions, or any third party, nor share any opinions on the institution’s chances of success or failure.

All written reviews used in evaluating an application are made available to the institutions when they are notified of the funding decision for a competition.

Protocols must be followed to ensure that information contained in applications, such as the internal and external reviews, and selection board discussions remain strictly confidential. Improper or unauthorized collection, use, disclosure, retention and/or disposal of this information can result in a privacy breach. See the Guide on Handling Documents Used in Peer Review for further details.

5. Roles and responsibilities

External reviewers

All applications will be peer reviewed by external reviewers in the nominee’s field of research. These reviewers will be asked to provide a written assessment of the application based on the program’s selection criteria.

For more details, see the Review Guidelines for External Reviewers.

Multidisciplinary selection board

A multidisciplinary selection board, composed of world-leading national and international researchers, will assess the applications using the selection criteria, taking into consideration the expert reviewers’ written assessments and the application materials.

Selection board members will carefully consider the ratings of the expert reviewers when comparing and assessing the relative merit of all applications in the competition.

Whereas external reviewers provide a written assessment of one application in their own field of research, the multidisciplinary selection board provides a balanced assessment of the applications and evaluates their relative merit to ensure the program’s objectives are met.

From an overall ranking, based on a full consideration of the selection criteria, the multidisciplinary selection board will make funding recommendations to the program’s Steering Committee for their consideration and approval, along with a ranked reversion list should any awards be declined or terminated early in the process.

Selection board chair

The multidisciplinary selection board chair commits to:

  • ensuring the multidisciplinary selection board functions smoothly, effectively, objectively and according to the program’s policies;
  • ensuring the selection board members understand and base their assessment on the program’s objectives and priorities;
  • establishing a positive, constructive, fair-minded environment in which the applications are evaluated;
  • mitigating unconscious bias in the selection board’s deliberations;
  • ensuring potential conflicts of interest are raised at the beginning of each meeting and during the evaluation of each application;
  • fulfilling an oversight role and participating in the review of applications;
  • presenting the selection board’s recommendations to the TIPS Steering Committee if invited to do so.

The selection board includes members who will assume the additional roles of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) champions and Indigenous research champions. These champions will, in addition to assessing applications, help support the selection board to ensure that EDI and Indigenous considerations are assessed consistently across all applications.

Tri-Agency Institutional Programs Secretariat Steering Committee (TIPS)

TIPS is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the CERC program.

The TIPS Steering Committee is composed of the presidents of CIHR, NSERC, SSHRC and the Canada Foundation for Innovation (as an observer), as well as the deputy ministers of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and Health Canada. The committee will ratify the multidisciplinary selection board’s funding recommendations, ensuring the selection process was rigorous, objective and transparent, in line with the standards of peer review excellence expected by the three federal research funding agencies and consistent with the program’s objectives.

6. Equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI)

The three federal research funding agencies are committed to excellence in research and research training, and prioritize achieving an equitable, diverse and inclusive Canadian research enterprise. EDI is essential to creating the excellent, innovative, impactful research needed to seize opportunities and respond to global challenges. To be successful, applications must demonstrate and implement the highest EDI standards.

The application needs to be aligned with the program’s commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion and with the institution’s EDI action plan. To achieve its research excellence-based objectives and outcomes, institutions are required to take active and rigorous measures to identify and prevent systemic barriers and ensure that excellent students, trainees, early-career researchers and faculty from underrepresented, equity-seeking, and rights-seeking populations, including racialized individuals, African, Caribbean and Black individuals, Indigenous Peoples, persons with disabilities, women and individuals from 2SLGBTQIA+ communities can fully contribute to the research program.

Supporting early career researchers is a tri-agency priority, as it enhances Canada’s position as a world leader in building talent and strengthening the research ecosystem. Chairs and host institutions are expected to implement measures that specifically support a diverse cohort of early career researchers.

7. Indigenous research

If a reviewer receives a proposal in which the applicant has answered “Yes” to the question “Does your proposal involve Indigenous research as defined by SSHRC?” they must refer to SSHRC’s Indigenous Research Statement of Principles and Guidelines for the Merit Review of Indigenous Research when assessing the application. The guidelines are provided to help reviewers build understanding of Indigenous research and research-related activities, and to assist them in interpreting the specific selection criteria in the context of Indigenous research.

Note: Institutions are expected to support the integration of Indigenous research in the nominee’s program, if appropriate. A rationale must be provided in cases where the application states that no aspect of the research may benefit from the inclusion of Indigenous research components.

8. Research security

It is the shared responsibility of nominating institutions and their respective teams to ensure that all possible steps are taken to address the risks involved with research and innovation, including theft, interference, or unauthorized transfer of knowledge and results in ways that individuals and teams do not intend. Refer to the guidance provided on the government’s safeguarding your research website for further information on the identification and mitigation of security risks, and the Policy on Sensitive Technology Research and Affiliations of Concern (STRAC), which applies to this funding opportunity.

Reviewers should not raise research security concerns as part of their review and should focus their assessments on the selection criteria provided. Any reviewer with concerns or questions related to research security is advised to contact us.

9. Budget

CERC grants are awarded for a period of eight years, with funds disbursed over the duration of the grant. The funding supports expenses related to compensation, as well as research activities for the chairholder and the chairholder’s team. Indirect costs can equal up to 25% of the direct costs of the proposed research. Indirect costs calculations exclude the salary of the chairholder (including benefits), teaching replacement costs of the chairholder, and eligible recruitment and relocation costs for the chairholder and/or the chairholder’s team.

Nominating institutions are instructed to complete the budget projections over eight years and include a budget justification for their proposed CERC grant. The budget projections include:

  • Funding from the CERC program: How the CERC funds will be used according to the line items.
  • Contribution from the university: Funds (cash and/or in-kind) committed in support of the chair by the institution.
  • Contribution from other sources: Funds (cash and/or in-kind) committed in support of the chair by sources other than the CERC program or the institution.

Selection board members are invited to consider the budget when evaluating the different criteria and comment on the appropriateness of the budget to reach the objectives of the chair’s program.

10. How to access applications for review

Selection board members will receive an email with detailed instructions describing how to use the online Convergence Portal to assess applications.

The Convergence Portal is only supported on the latest versions of Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Apple Safari and Mozilla Firefox. Use of an unsupported browser or a mobile device is strongly discouraged.

11. Peer review process

Assignment

All applications will be assigned to selection board members, taking into account expertise, conflicts, language and workload balance. You may be assigned to review proposals that are outside of your area of expertise. This approach will help calibrate ratings across a spectrum of proposals, as well as balance the workload across the multidisciplinary selection board.

Selection board members will be asked to provide a written assessment of the application, based on the program’s selection criteria, which is an integral part of the Definition of Ratings and a key element that informs the written assessment expected from all selection board members. The multidisciplinary selection board will also take external assessments into consideration when making their funding recommendations.

Application

Applications will be provided to the selection board members in PDF format, and will include the following sections:

  • Application details
  • Nominee
  • Socioeconomic objectives
  • Science, technology and innovation research priority areas
  • Fields of research
  • Keywords
  • Summary of the proposed program
  • Certifications, licences and permits
  • Partners
  • Existing expertise at the nominating institution
  • Proposed budget
  • Canada Foundation for Innovation
  • Life circumstances affecting research productivity
  • Extensions to funding history and research contributions
  • Tri-agency CV (TCV)
  • Supporting documents:
    • Quality of nominee
    • Quality of the institutional support
    • CERC recruitment process
    • Publicly advertised job posting
    • Proposed research program
    • Potential contribution to the excellence of the Canadian and international research ecosystem
    • Citations
    • Biosketches for existing expertise at the nominating institution
    • Letters of support
    • Nominees currently at a Canadian institution, if applicable
    • Environmental impact assessment, if applicable
    • Budget justification
    • Budget projections

Selection board members will also be provided with any external reviewer reports in PDF format through the Convergence Portal, when applicable (these will become available as they are submitted).

Note: The documents can be downloaded onto your computer or device. However, ensure they are kept strictly confidential. They should not be shared or emailed and should be deleted once the review process is completed. Review Section 13, below, regarding handling documents used in peer review.

Definition of ratings

Reviewers will consider the criteria, and their associated elements specified in the Definition of ratings. The merit indicators can be used to inform the ratings. Five ratings are provided for each selection criterion, and the merit indicators include references to major points of consideration to guide reviewers toward arriving at a rating for a given criterion.

All applications are evaluated using the same Definition of ratings. Selection board members are encouraged to use the full range of ratings, as appropriate, to achieve a distribution of ratings that reflects the quality of the applications being evaluated.

Applications submitted in French

Applications submitted in French are assigned to selection board members who have a reading comprehension of the French language.

Requests for infrastructure support

Through its John R. Evans Leaders Fund (JELF), the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) will enable a select number of an institution’s excellent researchers to undertake innovative research by providing them with the foundational research infrastructure required to be or to become leaders in their field.

The multidisciplinary selection board does not evaluate the CFI application attached to the main CERC application. Only the external reviewers are required to review this additional material. TIPS will share all external reviews with the CFI to inform their own independent assessment process.

Submitting your review

After reading the guidelines and the proposal, follow the instructions provided in the Convergence Portal to complete and submit your ratings and comments for each of the four selection criteria.

In the comment boxes in the Convergence Portal, provide objective feedback describing both the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal for each element of the criteria. Your written comments should be clear and concise, using objective and non-inflammatory language. Because your comments will be provided as feedback to the nominee, give sufficient details to explain your ratings. To ensure the confidentiality of the peer review process, do not provide information that identifies you.

When you are ready to submit your assessment in the Convergence Portal, review your ratings and comments to ensure they are complete. Click the “Submit Assessment” button to complete the assessment of each assigned application. The status of your submission will change to “Assessed”. Once all assessments are completed, select “CERC-2026-1” from the Competition dropdown list, then select “Application” from the Stage dropdown list. Finally, click the “Submit All Assessments” button. The status of your submission will change to “Submitted”.

Note: No further changes to your comments or ratings will be possible once your reviews are submitted.

We ask that your reviews be completed and submitted in the Convergence Portal by the date specified in your email invitation.

12. Multidisciplinary selection board meeting

A selection board meeting, moderated by the multidisciplinary selection board chair, will be held to discuss individual ratings, especially where there is divergence among the assigned members (significant discrepancy/disagreement). The meeting provides an additional forum to discuss the proposals, share perspectives and consider various opinions. All selection board members will be invited to participate in the discussion of the proposals.

Assigned members will not be required to modify their individual ratings to resolve divergent overall ratings, but the selection board will be asked to reach a final rating for each criterion. In addition to the external reviewer ratings and comments, applicants will receive both individual selection board member ratings and consensus selection board ratings as part of their results package.

Allocation of CERC awards

The program is exclusively excellence-based, and awards will be allocated on the basis of this competitive review. No special consideration is given to nominees based on region, size of nominating institution or factors other than the selection criteria.

Applications must meet a minimum rating of “Good” for each criterion in the multidisciplinary selection board’s final rating to be recommended for funding.

There is no established distribution of chairs based on career stage, award value ($500,000 annually and $1 million annually) or alignment with one of the three granting agencies (CIHR, NSERC, SSHRC). However, once the competition budget has been almost entirely allocated, if there are only enough funds to recommend funding for the next ranked nomination at the $500,000 annual award value, the selection board may decide to recommend funding a nomination at that award value to maximize the use of the funds.

13. Handling documents used in peer review

Review documents contain personal information, as well as information that, if disclosed in an unauthorized manner, could reasonably be expected to cause serious injury (such as prejudicial treatment, loss of reputation or competitive advantage) to an individual, organization or government. Therefore, these documents are protected by the Privacy Act, the Access to Information Act and the Policy on Government Security. Protocols must be followed to ensure that information contained in applications, internal and external reviews, and selection board discussions remains strictly confidential. Improper or unauthorized collection, use, disclosure, retention and/or disposal of this information can result in a privacy breach. See the Guide on Handling Documents Used in Peer Review for further details.

14. Legal and ethical information

Responsible conduct of research

Canada’s federal research funding agencies—CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC—are committed to fostering and maintaining an environment that supports and promotes the responsible conduct of research. The Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research (2021) sets out the responsibilities and corresponding policies for researchers, institutions and the agencies that together help support and promote a positive research environment.

Conflict of interest and confidentiality

Multidisciplinary selection board members must read and agree to the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement for Review Committee Members, External Reviewers, and Observers, which describes expectations and requirements.

Privacy Act

Personal information refers to any information about an identifiable individual. Based on the Privacy Act, personal information provided in the nomination must only be used for assessing applications, making funding decisions, and related uses describing nominees at the time that their personal information is collected. Board members are reminded that the use or disclosure of this information for any other purpose is illegal. It is important for selection board members to adhere strictly to the guidelines set out in the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement for Review Committee Members, External Reviewers, and Observers.

Canadian Human Rights Act

The activities of CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC are subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act. See Purpose of the Act.

Official Languages Act

All multidisciplinary selection board members must be aware of their obligations and rights under the Official Languages Act.