Association Canadienne des Neurosciences
Skip to content
Prix du jeune chercheur de l’ACN
2017 Tuan Trang
2017 Przemyslaw (Mike) Sapieha
2016 Matthew Hill
2015 Michael Douglas Gordon
2014 Brian E Chen
2014 Stephanie L Borgland
2013 Shayna Rosenbaum
2012 Frédéric Charron
2011 Edward S. Ruthazer
Prix de promotion des neurosciences 2017
Prix de promotion des neurosciences 2016
Postes de stagiaires post-doctoraux
Bourses de voyage
Le Canada est un leader mondial en recherche en neurosciences
Étude supérieures en neurosciences au Canada
Prix du Jeune Chercheur de l’ACN 2018
Appel de présentation par affiche
Inscription congrès 2018
Bourses de voyage 2018
Comité du programme scientifique 2018
Proposition de symposium satellite
Commanditaires et exposants
Nouveau sondage sur les réformes aux IRSC
New CIHR Reforms questionnaire
If you are human, leave this field blank.
Do you currently hold a CIHR grant
How many years have you been a principal investigator?
More than 10 years
Changes to the Funding system with the introduction of Foundation and Project Schemes
What do you think about the changes to the funding structure?
I don't have any concerns, the reform is a positive step forward
I have few small concerns, but in general I support the reforms.
I have significant concerns, but I believe they will be addressed as the transition moves ahead.
I have serious concerns about the proposed reforms, they are fundamentally flawed.
I support the new Foundation/Project grant scheme only if significantly more funding were obtained from the federal government for the new scheme.
The reforms will not change anything.
Have you expressed your opinion to CIHR during consultation?
What do you think would be the appropriate Foundation/Project funding ratio?
10% Foundation, 90% Projects
25% Foundation, 75% Projects
50% Foundation, 50% Projects
75% Foundation, 25% Projects
90% Foundation, 10% Projects
Do you believe that your chances of receiving sufficient, stable funding under the new Foundation and Project schemes are:
About the same
Too early to tell
In the last three years how did your funding status change
I have less research support from CIHR
I have more support from CIHR
Changes to the peer-review system - Part A - Review criteria
What was your impression of the new review criteria?
The new criteria capture well all the important elements of a research grant.
In general, review criteria are well thought out, only few small changes are required.
The new review criteria do not allow the proper evaluation of a research grant.
Were the questions you were asked to address in the proposal as an applicant clear?
Mostly clear, with some ambiguities
I did not apply
Were the criteria used to judge the proposals clearly explained to you as a reviewer?
I was not a reviewer
Changes to the peer-review system - Part B - Review process
What was your impression of the new review process? Did the level of expertise demonstrated live up to your expectations?
The review process was thorough and scores were well justified with expert opinion.
The review process lacked few experts but in general if was satisfactory
The review process lacked the necessary level of expertise, it is fundamentally flawed.
The review process has significant issues, but they can be corrected.
Were the feedbacks/comments you received helpful?
On a scale of 1-5 how much confidence do you have in the fairness of the new peer-review system? (1=not fair, 5=very fair)
Would you like to see the return to face-to-face reviews?
No, the current system is more efficient
Does not matter, the results are similar.
Yes, face-to face review is better.
Changes to the peer-review system - Part C - Implementation of the new system
Comments about CIHR Reforms. Please suggest concrete steps that in your opinion could lead to significant improvement of the current system.
What do you think about the implementation of the new system?
It was great, no major issues.
Few problems, but it is expected from a new system.
Could be significantly improved, I am sure it will be corrected for the next round.
It was unsatisfactory as compared to the previous review system, and cannot be sufficiently improved