The selection of successful nominees is based on the highest standards of excellence. The Canada Impact+ Research Chairs program uses a rigorous and competitive review process for awarding chairs. All applications submitted to the competition, regardless of award value, career stage or location of the nominee, will be assessed using the selection criteria for the program.
The following table describes major points of consideration to guide reviewers towards arriving at a rating for each selection criterion of the Canada Impact+ Research Chairs competition. The table should be used by reviewers in conjunction with the Canada Impact+ Research Chairs program’s Guidelines for the Multidisciplinary Selection Committees.
Applications must meet a minimum rating of “Good” for each criterion in the Multidisciplinary Selection Committee’s final assessment to be considered for funding.
Applications not aligned with one or more of the strategic priority areas will not be considered.
Criterion 1: Research/academic merit and leadership skills of the nominee
| Exceptional | Very strong | Good | Mostly satisfies | Does not satisfy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 Impact and international recognition of the nominee (as appropriate, based on career stage). This includes the nominee’s research, the level of recognition they hold in their field, and their record of service in the research community (e.g., service on peer review committees, faculty recruitment committees, advisory committees).Footnote * | The nominee’s research contributions have had a transformative impact, and they are recognized internationally as a foremost authority in their field. | The nominee’s research contributions have had a substantial impact, and they are recognized internationally as a leading authority in their field. | The nominee’s research contributions have had a strong impact, and they are recognized internationally as an authority in their field. | The nominee’s research contributions have had a modest impact, and they have some international recognition as an authority in their field. | The impact of the nominee’s research contributions is not clearly demonstrated and the nominee’s international recognition as an authority in their field is limited or not evident. |
| 1.2 Nominee’s record of establishing and sustaining an equitable, diverse and inclusive research environment, including attracting, training, mentoring and providing leadership opportunities to a diverse group of students, trainees and research personnel. | Record of establishing and sustaining an equitable and inclusive research environment is at the highest level. Has an exemplary record of attracting, training mentoring, and providing leadership opportunities for a diverse group of research trainees and other highly qualified personnel. | Record of establishing and sustaining an equitable and inclusive research environment is superior. Has a noteworthy record of attracting, training, mentoring, and providing leadership opportunities for a diverse group of research trainees and other highly qualified personnel. | Record of establishing and sustaining an equitable and inclusive research environment is strong. Has an impactful record of attracting, training, mentoring, and providing leadership opportunities for a diverse group of research trainees and other highly qualified personnel. | Record of establishing and sustaining an equitable and inclusive research environment is modest. Has a moderate record of attracting, training, mentoring, and providing leadership opportunities for a diverse group of research trainees and other highly qualified personnel. | Record of establishing and sustaining an equitable and inclusive research environment is weak or not clearly demonstrated. Record of attracting, training, mentoring, and providing leadership opportunities for a diverse group of research trainees and other highly qualified personnel appears limited. |
Criterion 2: Quality of the institutional support
| Exceptional | Very strong | Good | Mostly satisfies | Does not satisfy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1 Quality of the institutional environment (existing or planned) that will support the chairholder and the chairholder’s team throughout the tenure of the award to ensure the success of the research program. This includes the activities and additional support planned for the Chair, such as establishing governance committees and advisory bodies, stewardship plans, protected time for research (e.g., release from certain teaching or administrative duties), mentoring (if applicable), training, additional funds, office space, administrative support, hiring of other faculty members and salary support. | The institutional environment described is of the highest quality in terms of existing and planned infrastructure, record of global leadership and capacity to support the chairholder’s team to ensure the success of the research program. | The institutional environment described is of high quality in terms of existing and planned infrastructure, record of global leadership and capacity to support the chairholder’s team to ensure the success of the research program. | The institutional environment described is of good quality in terms of existing and planned infrastructure, record of global leadership and capacity to support the chairholder’s team to ensure the success of the research program. | The institutional environment described is acceptable in terms of existing and planned infrastructure, record of global leadership and capacity to support the chairholder’s team to ensure the success of the research program. | The institutional environment described is not demonstrated to be conducive in terms of existing and planned infrastructure, record of global leadership and capacity to support the chairholder’s team to ensure the success of the research program. |
| 2.2 Institution’s ability to sustain the research advantage created by the proposed Chair. This includes its ability to leverage partnerships with the private and public sectors, national and international research institutions, academic and/or philanthropic organizations; and the ability to retain the chairholder beyond the period of the award. | The institution’s plan to sustain the research advantage created by the Chair is exemplary.
Financial and other in-kind contributions secured through partnerships and other sources are highly valuable to the program’s intended outcomes and sustainability, including the ability to retain the chairholder beyond the period of the award. |
The institution’s plan to sustain the research advantage created by the Chair is excellent.
Funding commitments and other in-kind contributions secured through partnerships and other sources are valuable to the program’s intended outcomes and sustainability, including the ability to retain the chairholder beyond the period of the award. |
The institution’s plan to sustain the research advantage created by the Chair is adequate.
Funding commitments and other in-kind contributions secured through partnerships and other sources are relevant to the program’s intended outcomes and sustainability, including the ability to retain the chairholder beyond the period of the award. |
The institution’s plan to sustain the research advantage created by the Chair is modest.
Funding commitments and other in-kind contributions secured through partnerships and other sources provide modest value to the program’s intended outcomes and sustainability, including the ability to retain the chairholder beyond the period of the award. |
The institution’s plan to sustain the research advantage created by the Chair is not clearly demonstrated.
Funding commitments and other in-kind contributions secured through partnerships and other sources do not appear to bring value to the program’s intended outcomes and sustainability, including the ability to retain the chairholder beyond the period of the award. |
| 2.3 Institution’s research strengths in the proposed field, assessed against global standards of excellence. | The institution is widely recognized as a world leader in the proposed field of research, consistently producing groundbreaking work that sets the global benchmark in the field. | The institution is recognized internationally as a major centre in the proposed field of research, regularly contributing high-impact work that significantly advances the field. | The institution has a good reputation internationally in the proposed field of research, producing solid and respected work that meets the global standard in the field. | The institution has some international visibility in the proposed field of research, with some promising work that often meets global standards but lacks consistent impact. | The institution has limited international recognition in the proposed field of research, producing work that does not consistently meet the global standard and has a minimal impact on the field. |
| 2.4 Strength of the institution’s overall commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in research and academia. This includes the quality of the outreach and the transparency of selection processes, and the level of support it will provide to the chairholder in helping to establish, sustain and strengthen an equitable, diverse and inclusive research team, environment and ecosystem.
For more details, refer to the Recruitment page and to the additional best practices developed for the Canada Research Chairs Program (CRCP). |
The institution’s commitment to EDI is remarkable.
Principles of EDI are fully considered in all aspects of outreach. Selection processes are transparent. EDI measures for the chairholder and chairholder’s team are highly appropriate. |
The institution’s commitment to EDI is noteworthy.
Principles of EDI are considered in all aspects of outreach. Selection processes are transparent. EDI measures for the chairholder and chairholder’s team are very appropriate. |
The institution’s commitment to EDI is suitable.
Principles of EDI are considered in all aspects of outreach. Selection processes are transparent. EDI measures for the chairholder and chairholder’s team are appropriate. |
The institution’s commitment to EDI is modest.
Principles of EDI are considered in most aspects of outreach. Selection processes are not sufficiently transparent. EDI measures for the chairholder and chairholder’s team are partially appropriate. |
The institution’s commitment to EDI is weak.
Principles of EDI are considered in some aspects of outreach. Selection processes are not sufficiently transparent. EDI measures for the chairholder and chairholder’s team, including objectives, are not appropriate. |
Criterion 3: Quality of the research program
| Exceptional | Very strong | Good | Mostly satisfies | Does not satisfy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1 Promise of the proposed research program in the context of leading global research in the field, the transformational and translational potential of the research, and the extent to which the Chair fills a gap within existing expertise at the institution or in Canada. | The research program’s contributions to its area of research are highly innovative and the Chair will overcome a remarkable knowledge gap within the institution or in Canada. Its advances in research are highly likely to have a transformational and translational impact on a global scale. |
The research program’s contributions to its area of research are innovative and the Chair will overcome a noteworthy knowledge gap within the institution or in Canada. Its advances in research are very likely to have a transformational and translational impact on a global scale. |
The research program’s contributions to its area of research are innovative and the Chair will address a knowledge gap within the institution or in Canada. Its advances in research are likely to have a transformational and translational impact on a global scale. |
The research program’s contributions to its area of research have some innovative aspects and the Chair will modestly address a knowledge gap within the institution or in Canada. Its advances in research are moderately likely to have a transformational and translational impact on a global scale. |
The research program’s contributions to its area of research lack in innovativeness and the Chair does not convincingly demonstrate that it will fill a knowledge gap. Its advances in research are not likely to have a transformational and translational impact on a global scale. |
| 3.2 Quality of the proposed research program in terms of how it has embedded EDI considerations (e.g., GBA Plus or SGBA Plus) at each stage of the research process and its associated outcomes (as applicable). | EDI considerations are fundamentally embedded in all stages of the research process, as applicable, supporting outcomes that highly benefit impacted communities. |
EDI considerations are fully embedded in all stages of the research process, as applicable, supporting outcomes that strongly benefit impacted communities. |
EDI considerations are adequately embedded in all stages of the research process, as applicable, supporting outcomes that benefit impacted communities. |
EDI considerations are embedded in some stages of the research process, as applicable, supporting outcomes that partially benefit impacted communities. |
The integration of EDI considerations into the research process, as applicable, is not evident and the benefit to impacted communities is not appropriate or clearly defined. |
| 3.3 Quality of the proposed research program in terms of how research is co-created and co-led by and with First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples, as investigators, trainees, partners and collaborators, and its recognition of Indigenous ways of knowing (as applicable). | Co-creation, collaborative dialogue, co-leadership and co-ownership with First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples are fully integrated in the research program and research design, as applicable. |
Co-creation, collaborative dialogue, co-leadership and co-ownership with First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples are integrated in most aspects of the research program and research design, as applicable. |
There is satisfactory engagement and reciprocity with First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples present for Indigenous research. |
There is modest engagement and reciprocity with First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples present for Indigenous research. |
The engagement and reciprocity with First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples present for Indigenous research appear to be lacking or are not well described. |
| 3.4 Appropriateness of the proposed budget in terms of it being reasonable and well justified for carrying out the proposed activities. | The expenditures are very well justified, and the budget is highly appropriate for carrying out the proposed activities. |
The expenditures are well justified, and the budget is appropriate for carrying out the proposed activities. |
The expenditures are adequately justified, and the budget is acceptable for carrying out the proposed activities. |
The expenditures are justified to some extent, and the budget is partially appropriate for carrying out the proposed activities. |
The expenditures are poorly justified, and the budget is not appropriate for carrying out the proposed activities. |
Criterion 4: Potential contribution to the excellence of the Canadian and international research ecosystem
| Exceptional | Very strong | Good | Mostly satisfies | Does not satisfy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.1 Likelihood the work of the proposed Chair will advance the frontiers of research in the field on a global scale, as well as Canada’s reputation as a centre for science, research and innovation excellence. | The proposed research shows remarkable promise in terms of advancing the frontiers of research on a global scale and positioning Canada at the forefront of research excellence. |
The proposed research shows noteworthy promise in terms of its global relevance and positioning Canada at the forefront of research excellence. |
The proposed research shows strong promise in terms of its global relevance and positioning Canada at the forefront of research excellence. |
The proposed research shows some promise in terms of its global relevance and positioning Canada at the forefront of research excellence. |
The proposed research does not show sufficient promise in terms of its global relevance and positioning Canada at the forefront of research excellence. |
| 4.2 Plan for establishing and maintaining a diverse chairholder’s team (which includes faculty, early career researchers, research trainees, other highly qualified personnel and administrative staff), and an environment that is safe and inclusive and allows all team members to reach their full research potential (e.g., through the recruitment and outreach strategy, equitable training opportunities, professional development and mentoring). | The plan for building a diverse chairholder’s team is of the highest quality and is very well defined. The proposed research environment is highly likely to enable team members to develop their research potential. |
The plan for building a diverse chairholder’s team is of high quality and is well defined. The proposed research environment is very likely to enable team members to develop their research potential. |
The plan for building a diverse chairholder’s team is complete and defined. The proposed research environment is likely to enable team members to develop their research potential. |
The plan for building a diverse chairholder’s team is moderate and partially defined. The proposed research environment will somewhat enable team members to develop their research potential. |
The plan for building a diverse chairholder’s team is not appropriate or underdeveloped. The proposed research environment has a low or insufficient likelihood to enable team members to develop their research potential. |
| 4.3 Extent to which the proposed research program will lead to enriched learning experiences for students, trainees and other highly qualified personnel to develop relevant skills, while fostering advancement and future career opportunities. | The training plans are exemplary; the long-term vision and short-term goals will provide students and other highly qualified personnel with the education and experiences necessary to develop high-quality, transferrable skills that will enhance career prospects in academia, industry or other fields. |
The training plans are excellent; the long-term vision and short-term goals will provide students and other highly qualified personnel with the education and experiences necessary to develop very good quality, transferrable skills that will enhance career prospects in academia, industry or other fields. |
The training plans are sufficient; the long-term vision and short-term goals will provide students and other highly qualified personnel with the education and experiences necessary to develop good quality, transferrable skills that will enhance career prospects in academia, industry or other fields. |
The training plans are appropriate but lacking in some detail; the long-term vision and short-term goals will provide students and other highly qualified personnel with the education and experiences necessary to develop relevant skills in support of career readiness. |
The training plans are underdeveloped and do not provide sufficient education and experiences for students and other highly qualified personnel to develop relevant skills in support of career readiness. |
| 4.4 Alignment of the proposed research program with one or more of the Government of Canada’s strategic priority areas for Canada Impact+ Research Chairs to create social and economic advantages for Canada. | The research program demonstrates strong alignment with one or more of the strategic priority areas for the Impact+ Research Chairs program. The expected outcomes are highly likely to create significant social and economic advantages for Canada. |
The research program advances one or more of the strategic priority areas for the Impact+ Research Chairs program. The expected outcomes are very likely to create important social and economic advantages for Canada. |
The research program advances one or more of the strategic priority areas for the Impact+ Research Chairs program. The expected outcomes are likely to create important social and economic advantages for Canada. |
The research program advances one or more of the strategic priority areas for the Impact+ Research Chairs program. The expected outcomes may create some social and economic advantages for Canada. |
The research program does not clearly advance any of the strategic priority areas for the Impact+ Research Chairs program. The expected outcomes are unlikely or not convincingly demonstrated to create social and economic advantages for Canada. |
Criterion 5: Potential for knowledge translation, mobilization and application of research results
| Exceptional | Very strong | Good | Mostly satisfies | Does not satisfy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5.1 Extent to which the proposed research program’s knowledge mobilization, translation and commercialization plan shows a pathway for how research results could be shared and applied in practices, products and/or services, and how tangible economic or societal benefits for Canada and Canadians will be generated. |
The proposal demonstrates an exemplary pathway for sharing research results and applications. |
The proposal demonstrates a strong pathway for sharing research results and applications. |
The proposal demonstrates a sufficient pathway for sharing research results and applications. |
The proposal demonstrates a moderate pathway for sharing research results and applications. |
The proposal demonstrates a limited or insufficient pathway for sharing research results and applications. |
5.2 Extent to which the knowledge mobilization, translation and commercialization plan has identified target users, outlined engagement mechanisms and potential partnerships such as private and public sectors, national and international research institutions, philanthropic organizations and Indigenous communities (if applicable). |
Target users are clearly identified. |
Target users are clearly identified. |
Target users are clearly identified. |
Target users are somewhat identified. |
Target users are not identified. |
5.3 The appropriateness of the described strategies for successfully delivering on the proposed research program’s translational objectives, including (as applicable) commercialization pathways and intellectual property management, for social and economic benefits for Canada and the world. |
The strategies for delivering on the translational objectives for social and economic benefits are exceptional. |
The strategies for delivering on the translational objectives for social and economic benefits are superior. |
The strategies for delivering on the translational objectives for social and economic benefits are appropriate. |
The strategies for delivering on the translational objectives for social and economic benefits are moderately appropriate. |
The strategies for delivering on the translational objectives for social and economic benefits are not appropriate. |
5.4 Performance of the institution in terms of its demonstrated record of effective knowledge translation and its planned support for the Chair’s knowledge translation. |
The institution’s record of effective knowledge translation is exceptional. The institution’s planned support for the Chair’s knowledge translation is exceptional. |
The institution’s record of effective knowledge translation is superior. The institution’s planned support for the Chair’s knowledge translation is superior. |
The institution’s record of effective knowledge translation is good. The institution’s planned support for the Chair’s knowledge translation is appropriate. |
The institution’s record of effective knowledge translation is modest. The institution’s planned support for the Chair’s knowledge translation is moderate. |
The institution’s record of effective knowledge translation is limited. The institution’s planned support for the Chair’s knowledge translation is not sufficient. |
5.5 Experience of the nominee in delivering tangible knowledge translation outcomes. |
The nominee has an exceptional record in the delivery of tangible knowledge translation outcomes. |
The nominee has a very strong record in the delivery of tangible knowledge translation outcomes. |
The nominee has a good record in the delivery of tangible knowledge translation outcomes. |
The nominee has a limited record in the delivery of tangible knowledge translation outcomes. |
The nominee has an insufficient record in the delivery of tangible knowledge translation outcomes. |