On this page
- Purpose of the guidelines
- Background and program objectives
- Overview of the 2026 CERC competition 5
- Principles of merit review
- Roles and responsibilities
- Equity, diversity and inclusion
- Indigenous research
- Research security
- Budget
- How to access applications for review
- Peer review process
- Handling documents used in peer review
- 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
External reviewers are encouraged to take unconscious bias training. Note that 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.
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.
External reviewers 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. The identities of external reviewers are confidential; they will not be disclosed publicly or to nominating institutions and nominees.
Protocols must be followed to ensure that information contained in applications, such as the internal and external reviews, 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.
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. The multidisciplinary selection board will take these assessments into consideration when making its funding recommendations.
External reviewers provide important input, and generally only review one application. The multidisciplinary selection board members will review a broad range of applications to compare and assess their relative merit.
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.
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.
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 institution 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. These 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.
Reviewers 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
Reviewers will receive an email with detailed instructions describing how to use the online Convergence Portal to assess the 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 peer reviewed by external reviewers in the nominee’s field of research. Each application is assigned to at least three external reviewers. Language abilities and institutional conflicts of interest will be considered when assigning applications, see Applications submitted in French for further information. External reviewers 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 external reviewers. The multidisciplinary selection board will also take these assessments into consideration when making their funding recommendations.
Application
Applications will be provided to the reviewers in PDF format and will include the following sections:
- Application details
- Nominee
- Socio-economic 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 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
Note: The PDF can be downloaded onto your computer or device. However, ensure it is kept strictly confidential. It should not be shared or emailed and should be deleted once the peer review process is completed. Review Section 12, 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. Reviewers 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 external reviewers who have a reading comprehension of the French language.
Requests for infrastructure support
These instructions are intended for reviewers who are also responsible for reviewing a proposal submitted to the John R. Evans Leaders Fund (JELF) in conjunction with CERC.
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.
If a nominating institution submits a JELF application directly to the CFI, the CFI will share the application with the CERC program for inclusion in the external peer review process and will be part of the review package.
In the Convergence Portal, the online evaluation form includes specific questions associated with the CERC application; however, if the application is associated with a “Request for infrastructure support from the Canadian Foundation for innovation (CFI)”, external reviewers will also be presented with additional mandatory questions associated with this application.
As a reviewer, you must rate the degree to which the proposal meets each criterion standard using an assessment scale with five ratings. Reviewers will be required to substantiate the ratings by explaining the strengths and weaknesses they perceive for each of the two assessment criteria in the proposal (infrastructure; benefit to Canadians).
To ensure that anonymity is preserved, we ask that you refrain from writing any comments in your report that could reveal your identity. Further information can be found in the John R. Evans Leaders Fund | Guidelines for reviewers.
Submitting your review
After reading these guidelines and the application, follow the instructions provided in the Convergence Portal to complete and submit your ratings and comments for each of the four selection criteria.
To assign ratings, refer to the Definition of Ratings. In the comment boxes in the Convergence Portal, provide objective feedback, describing both the strengths and weaknesses of the application 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 institutions, ensure you provide sufficient detail to explain your ratings. To ensure the confidentiality of the peer review process, do not provide information that identifies you.
Note: No further changes to your comments or ratings will be possible once your assessment is submitted.
When you are ready to submit your assessment in the Convergence Portal, review your ratings and comments to ensure they are complete. Once you’ve confirmed that your assessment is complete, click on “Submit Assessment”, which is an option located at the very bottom of the online assessment form. You will be prompted to the “Reviewer Assignments” tab and you will see that under the “Actions” column heading, the status of your application is changed to “Submitted”.
We ask that your review be completed and submitted in the Convergence Portal by the date specified in your email invitation.
12. 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 panel 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.
13. 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
Reviewers 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 when assessing applications, making funding decisions, and for related uses describing nominees at the time that their personal information is collected. Reviewers are reminded that the use or disclosure of this information for any other purpose is illegal. It is important for reviewers 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 reviewers and CERC program staff must be aware of their obligations and rights as legislated in the Official Languages Act.