Definition of Ratings: Stage 2—Full Application


The Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF) is a unique institutional initiative that supports large-scale research programs and aims to boost the strengths of Canadian postsecondary institutions so they can achieve global success in research areas that create long-term social and economic advantages for Canada. The program’s objective is not to develop capacity where there is emerging potential.

The letter of intent (LOI) stage assessed selected subcriteria for each of the three selection criteria. These will not be reassessed at the full proposal stage. However, the ratings from the LOI will be carried forward for reference and consideration in the final adjudication. The LOI application will be made available to provide background information and context for the review of the full proposal.

Institutions that were successful at the LOI stage will be invited to submit a full application.

The following rating scale will apply for each criterion:

  1. Fully satisfies and exceeds: fully satisfies and significantly exceeds in one or more aspects
  2. Fully satisfies: satisfies in all aspects
  3. Mostly satisfies: satisfies in most aspects, but has some minor weaknesses
  4. Does not satisfy: does not satisfy in most aspects and has some major weaknesses

In keeping with the program’s goals of targeting global excellence and leadership, proposals must receive high scores across all selection criteria to be considered for funding. Applications must meet a minimum rating of “Fully satisfies” for all three criteria. An application with a scientific strategy that differs significantly from the contents of the LOI (with respect to the area of research and its alignment with the science, technology and innovation [ST&I] priority research areas) will not be accepted. The multidisciplinary review panel will reconfirm the application still aligns with the ST&I priority research areas at the application adjudication stage. Applications will be withdrawn if they do not align. However, proposals will ultimately be differentiated during the full application stage based on the potential of the proposed initiative to achieve world-leading research outcomes in areas of long-term economic advantage for Canada.

Scientific Strategy (Part B of the application)

The following provides the selection criteria being evaluated at the full application stage, and the expectations and characteristics of each possible rating.

Criterion 1: Scientific merit and demonstrated capacity to lead on an international scale

Reviewers will consider the following selection criteria:

  • potential for the lead and partner institutions to demonstrate global research leadership in the proposed thematic area;
  • originality and positioning of the proposed research vis-à-vis existing national and international capacity, the interdisciplinary and intersectoral approach of the proposed research, and the potential for the research to provide breakthrough impact on a global scale;
  • level of excellence of the existing research underpinning the proposed initiative;*
  • the institutions’ interdisciplinary research strength in the proposed area and, where applicable, how strategic and meaningful partnerships with other eligible institutions in shared areas of excellence will promote collaboration in the Government of Canada’s ST&I priorities for the CFREF and CERC programs;*
  • quality of the partnerships among Canadian institutions;*
  • quality of the research facilities of the lead and partner institutions, as well as of the opportunities and environment for research training;*
  • quality of the lead and partner institutions’ knowledge mobilization, translation and commercialization strategies and plans addressing program expectations and potential for outcomes;
  • quality of the training plans and strategies that will establish CFREF-supported institutions as top global destinations to conduct research and to receive training;
  • quality of the research proposal in considering and implementing equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) (i.e., GBA+/SGBA+) within, as relevant, the research questions, design, methodology, data collection, analysis and interpretation and dissemination of results;
  • quality of the proposed research in its inclusion of Indigenous research that is co-created and co-led by and with First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples—as investigators, students, trainees, partners and collaborators—and in its recognition of Indigenous ways of knowing, and how it will extend research knowledge in the field that is significant for Indigenous Peoples and communities; and
  • in the case of an institution that was previously awarded a CFREF grant, evidence that the institution has achieved world-class recognition and proposes a new and innovative initiative that furthers its global leadership in the supported thematic area.*

Subcriteria marked with an asterisk (*) were assessed at the LOI stage.

The corresponding rating scale is:

Rating Descriptor
Fully satisfies and exceeds

The level of excellence and potential to achieve and/or maintain global leadership in the proposed area(s) of research is among the top 5% in the world.

The proposed initiative is highly original and outstanding: it exceeds in one (or more) selection subcriteria and fully satisfies in all.

Fully satisfies

The level of excellence and potential to achieve and/or maintain global leadership in the proposed area(s) of research is among the top 5-10% in the world.

The proposed initiative is original and very strong: it fully satisfies in all selection subcriteria.

Mostly satisfies

The level of excellence and potential to achieve and/or maintain global leadership in the proposed area(s) of research is among the top 10-15% in the world.

The proposed initiative is somewhat original and strong: it mostly satisfies some of the selection subcriteria but has some weaknesses.

Does not satisfy

The level of excellence and potential to achieve and/or maintain global leadership in the proposed area(s) of research is below the top 15% in the world.

The proposed initiative lacks originality and is average: it does not satisfy most of the selection subcriteria and has some major weaknesses.

Criterion 2: Strategic relevance to Canada

Reviewers will consider the following selection criteria areas:

  • potential for the proposed research to create long-term economic advantages for Canada;
  • alignment of the proposed grant with the Government of Canada’s ST&I priorities for the CFREF and CERC programs;  
  • ability of the proposed initiative to leverage additional research capacity and resources and to promote knowledge mobilization through partnerships with:
    • Canadian academic institutions;
    • the private sector;
    • international research institutions;
    • public sector, not-for-profit and philanthropic organizations, both in Canada and abroad;
  • translation of the research results to foster innovation, including the capacity to create or build upon commercial endeavours;
  • the level of technology readiness and patents to support technological transfers; and
  • the potential to advance public policy or otherwise mobilize research discoveries.

Only initiatives aligned with the Government of Canada’s ST&I priorities for the CFREF and CERC programs will be invited to submit a full proposal.

The corresponding rating scale is:

Rating Descriptor
Fully satisfies and exceeds

The proposed initiative has outstanding strategic relevance to Canada: it exceeds in one (or more) selection subcriteria and fully satisfies in all.

The initiative aligns with the Government of Canada’s ST&I priority research areas for the CFREF and CERC programs.

Fully satisfies

The proposed initiative has very strong strategic relevance to Canada: it fully satisfies in all selection subcriteria.

The initiative aligns with the Government of Canada’s ST&I priority research areas for the CFREF and CERC programs.

Mostly satisfies

The proposed initiative is strong in some respects in its strategic relevance to Canada: it mostly satisfies some of the selection subcriteria but has some weaknesses.

The initiative mostly aligns with the Government of Canada’s ST&I priority research areas for the CFREF and CERC programs.

Does not satisfy

The proposed initiative has not demonstrated its strategic relevance to Canada: it does not satisfy most of the selection subcriteria and has some major weaknesses.

The initiative does not align, or has demonstrated a weak alignment, with the Government of Canada’s ST&I priorities for the CFREF and CERC programs.

Implementation Plan (Part A of the application)

Criterion 3: Quality of implementation plans

Reviewers will consider the following selection criteria areas:

  • quality of the institution’s vision, and the institution’s willingness to commit internal resources to support the proposed initiative;
  • quality of the implementation and risk management plans (including governance and stewardship plans);
  • overview of systemic barriers to equitable access for individuals from underrepresented groups that persist in the proposed research area, and examples of bold and innovative strategies to address them within the initiative;*
  • strategy for establishing and maintaining a diverse research team, including early career researchers, and for providing an inclusive and safe environment;*
  • quality of the strategy that will be used in the first year of the initiative to develop a comprehensive and innovative EDI action plan;
  • suitability of the institution’s performance measurement plan as a basis for monitoring progress, assessing outcomes and impacts, and course-correcting as needed; and
  • quality of sustainability plan addressing how momentum created by the grant will support research teams and activities after the grant’s tenure.

Subcriteria marked with an asterisk (*) were assessed at the LOI stage.

Rating Descriptor
Fully satisfies and exceeds

The implementation plans are outstanding: they exceed in one (or more) selection subcriteria and fully satisfy in all.

Fully satisfies

The implementation plans are very strong: they fully satisfy in all selection subcriteria.

Mostly satisfies

The implementation plans are strong in most aspects: they mostly satisfy in some subcriteria but not all.

Does not satisfy

The implementation plans are average: they do not satisfy most of the selection subcriteria.