SSHRC Manual for Merit Review Committee Members

This manual summarizes the policies and procedures to be followed when reviewing applications for Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grants, scholarships and awards. Some programs, such as those administered by the Tri-agency Institutional Programs Secretariat and funding opportunities dedicated to Indigenous researchers, have their own specific evaluation guides.

SSHRC relies on the expertise of its merit review committee members and gratefully acknowledges their vital contributions to the research community.

SSHRC merit review principles

Committee work is based on cooperation and mutual respect for diverse viewpoints across all sectors of society. SSHRC’s merit review process follows principles of responsible research assessment:

Transparency: Before applicants submit proposals, criteria for assessing proposals and details of the review process are available on the SSHRC website.
Expert assessment: SSHRC uses appropriate expert reviewers to assess the merit of funding applications.
Due diligence and appropriateness: SSHRC follows a merit review process that is appropriate to the type of proposed research and proportionate to the investment and complexity of the work.
Indigenous research: SSHRC is committed to supporting and promoting research by and with Indigenous Peoples and recognizes that Indigenous research, which includes a wide range of theoretical and methodological approaches, supports SSHRC’s commitment to scholarly excellence.
Research diversity: SSHRC recognizes there is a diversity of research approaches, outputs and impacts.
Barrier-free, inclusive and respectful committee processes: SSHRC is committed to maximizing the accessibility and inclusiveness of peer review processes, and ensuring respectful committee deliberations.
Impartiality: All participants are asked to declare potential conflicts of interests.
Confidentiality: Applications should be treated as strictly confidential at all times by those involved in the review process.
Separation of duties: SSHRC separates the merit review of proposals from funding decisions. Committees assess the merit of applications while SSHRC is responsible for funding decisions.
No parallel assessment: SSHRC avoids assessing the merit of the same proposal more than once.

Guidance on policies and regulations

Committee members must adhere to the following during the review process:

Conflict of interest and confidentiality

The Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality policy applies to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and SSHRC (referred to collectively as “the agencies”).

Managing conflicts of interest

Committee members are responsible for identifying and declaring any conflict of interest, real, perceived or potential, related to an application, and for informing SSHRC staff of the conflict as soon as they become aware of it. Failing to report conflicts is a breach of the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research. While SSHRC cannot anticipate all potential conflicts of interest, its staff makes every effort to avoid any conflicts before assigning applications to committee members.

Before accessing assigned applications, committee members must agree to the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement for Review Committee Members, External Reviewers, and Observers. Program officers advise the committee in cases when it is unclear if a conflict of interest exists or if the situation falls outside the examples listed in the agreement.

In committee meetings, those in conflict of interest must recuse themselves (e.g., by leaving the physical or virtual room) when the application in question is discussed. When the committee chair withdraws because of a conflict of interest, the committee will designate an alternate chair for the review of the application(s).

Individuals under investigation for a breach of policy must temporarily withdraw from participating in the agencies’ merit review processes. These individuals must immediately inform the SSHRC staff responsible for the competition that they are temporarily unavailable. They do not need to reveal the reason for their withdrawal. They must also decline further merit review invitations from any agency. Participation in a review process may resume or commence if, once the investigation is complete, the president of the relevant funding agency has determined that the individual is eligible to participate again.

Access to Information Act and Privacy Act

All information provided to SSHRC is subject to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, which govern the collection, use and disclosure of information under the control of the federal government.

Under these Acts, applicants have the right to access the full text of any external assessments, letters of appraisal, departmental appraisals and research appraisals obtained for their proposal. They do not have access to the names of individuals who provided these documents, any comments made about individuals other than the applicant, or the names of reviewers.

For Partnership Grants expert panels, the names of reviewers are on the co-authored report provided to the applicant. Expert panelists agree to this as part of the process, and applicants do not receive the names until after the review process is complete.

In its commitment to transparency, SSHRC publishes the membership of its merit review committees on its website shortly after competition results are released to applicants.

Personal information in applications

The Privacy Act protects personal information held by government institutions while giving individuals the right to access information. Personal information cannot be used without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, except for the purpose for which it was collected or for a use consistent with that purpose.

Consequently, committee members must agree to the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement for Review Committee Members, External Reviewers and Observers to:

protect and keep confidential all information pertaining to the application and committee review deliberations;
ensure the secure access, storage and transmission of review documentation to prevent unauthorized access or a potential privacy breach. This includes safeguarding user ID and passwords for the SSHRC extranet. Access to the extranet is limited to committee members and observers; and
return all removable media and hardcopy documents as applicable to SSHRC staff at the conclusion of meetings, as well as securely and permanently delete or destroy all material that is no longer required, including any work saved on a computer or electronic storage device.

In the evaluation of applications, reviewers should also be aware that inputting application information into generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools could result in breaches of privacy and in the loss of custody of intellectual property. Examples include transmission of application text using online tools such as ChatGPT and DeepL, which may store and reuse the data for future enhancement of the tool. This would place a reviewer in breach of the confidentiality agreement. Therefore, use of publicly available generative AI tools for evaluating applications is strictly prohibited.

For questions or concerns about the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, contact SSHRC’s manager, ATIP and Corporate Operations, at ATIP-AIPRP@sshrc-crsh.gc.ca.

Committee deliberations

Committee discussions are confidential and cannot be shared outside the meeting space, including with colleagues or on social media. Committee members must not impart, refer to, or consider information about the applicant that does not appear in the application materials, and results must not be disclosed before SSHRC officially releases them. If approached by an applicant concerning a decision, committee members must decline to discuss the matter and advise them to contact SSHRC directly.

Results

After SSHRC approves the funding decisions based on the committee’s recommendations, it follows the process for the notification of competition results.

Ethics

All research funding recipients must comply with the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS 2) which includes Chapter 9: Research Involving the First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples of Canada.

Institutions are expected to support researchers to comply with TCPS 2, including ensuring that a research ethics board reviews and approves all research activities involving human participants. While the applicant’s institution is primarily responsible for ensuring adherence to TCPS 2, merit review committees can raise questions during the committee discussion if they have concerns. Applicants are not required to submit a research ethics certificate with their application.

Responsible conduct of research

The Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research describes the requirements related to applying for and managing agency funds, performing research and disseminating results. The framework also outlines the processes that institutions and the agencies must follow if there is an allegation of a breach of agency policy.

Committee members can raise any concerns with their committee chair or SSHRC program officer about applicants potentially breaching agency policy before the committee meeting. Examples might include: an application containing plagiarized content, or an applicant has incomplete or inaccurate information in their CV (e.g. marking articles as peer reviewed when they are not, listing unverified appointments or degrees, or including inaccurate information about their student training activities). These concerns should not be considered when assessing the merit of an application. The program officer will communicate the concerns, along with all relevant information to the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research.

Non-discrimination

Under SSHRC’s Non-Discrimination Policy, no persons meeting the eligibility requirements will be subject to discrimination under any funding opportunity or activity that receives SSHRC funding.

Bias awareness

As part of their commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion, the agencies developed the Bias in Peer Review training module to provide committee members with the knowledge and skills necessary to identify and mitigate bias that can affect the merit review process. Committee members are required to complete this mandatory training, or an equivalent offered at their institution or elsewhere, and to utilize its guidance to actively identify and mitigate bias in their review of applications.

Committee members are also reminded of the Government of Canada’s commitment to eliminating systemic racism and discrimination. For more information, see Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy 2024-2028.

Barrier-free, inclusive and respectful committee processes

SSHRC supports a respectful, inclusive, barrier-free environment for committee deliberations that is free from harassment, bullying, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism and other forms of discrimination, and where respect for freedom of expression and a diversity of viewpoints is upheld. When participating in a merit review process, committee members are required to adhere to their institution’s policies on harassment and discrimination.

Ensuring respectful, inclusive dialogue during committee deliberations is a shared responsibility. If there are concerns regarding potential bias, discrimination, harassment, disrespectful dialogue and/or microaggressions during group discussions, it is important that they be addressed.

Committee members are encouraged to raise any concern(s) they may have during the committee discussion, as mentioned in the bias awareness training, if they feel comfortable doing so, or to communicate their concerns to the committee chair and/or program officer during or following the committee meeting.

Accessibility

While SSHRC is committed to maximizing the accessibility and inclusiveness of review processes (see Barrier 6.5 in the 2022-2025 SSHRC Accessibility Plan), creating inclusive meetings is a shared responsibility. This includes scheduling breaks, encouraging materials be submitted on time, having the chair summarize conclusions of discussions and indicating subject or language changes.

Committee members requiring adaptive measures or accommodations due to barriers may contact the responsible program officer. Refer to the Accessibility in Programs and Services webpage for information on requesting assistance or contact accessibility-accessibilite@sshrc-crsh.gc.ca directly.

Official languages

SSHRC ensures that Canadian researchers have access to its programs and staff in the official language of their choice, and that applications submitted in either English or French are treated equitably. To that end, SSHRC ensures that:

applications are accepted in either official language;
program officers provide service to research community members in the official language of their choice;
the merit review process has a balanced representation of both official languages; and
committee members can conduct deliberations in either official language.

SSHRC also supports Canada’s official languages and the strengthening and development of official language minority communities. SSHRC is committed to promoting and supporting social sciences and humanities research on issues related to official languages and linguistic duality, as well as fostering research capacity in official language minority community institutions.

See SSHRC’s Official Languages Policy for more details.

Appeals

SSHRC is committed to the integrity of its merit review. An appeal process, managed through SSHRC’s Vice-President, Corporate Affairs’ office, allows applicants to seek reconsideration of a funding decision under certain circumstances. See SSHRC’s Appeals of decisions based on merit review for more details.

Committee roles and functioning

SSHRC assembles merit review committees with the collective knowledge, expertise and experience best suited to review research applications. Individuals can participate via several roles, such as committee chair, committee member, observer or external reviewer. The Merit review process page provides information on these roles and on the selection criteria used in recruiting reviewers.

Committee chair

The committee chair is responsible for ensuring that the committee carries out its work with fairness, thoroughness and integrity. The committee chair plays a vital role in ensuring that SSHRC’s policies and procedures are observed, including avoiding potential or actual conflicts of interest involving committee members. The chair works closely with the program officer, seeking guidance before and during the merit review process, as needed.

The committee chair also:

guides the committee’s discussion of applications;
ensures that all committee deliberations are conducted in a respectful and inclusive manner;
manages the committee’s time efficiently together with the program officer, so that applications can be adequately discussed;
ensures that the committee’s final recommendations accurately reflect the consensus of its members;
officially approves the final scores and ranking;
takes a leadership role in identifying, addressing and resolving instances of interpersonal conflict, harassment, discrimination and/or microaggressions during committee deliberations, in collaboration with the program officer;
can lead committee members in a policy discussion to provide feedback to SSHRC on the merit review process and procedures, and other questions related to the funding opportunity; and
undertakes additional reviewing responsibilities, as the need arises.

In the case of grant competitions, committee chairs should be familiar with all of the applications.

Committee members

Each committee member will receive the necessary assessment tools and their assigned applications. In cases where there is a conflict of interest with an assigned application, committee members must immediately inform their program officer and refrain from reviewing it. Before the committee meeting, members must review and provide preliminary scores for all applications assigned to them.

Applications must be scored using the funding opportunity’s evaluation criteria and the scoring table that the program officer provides (also available in the relevant funding opportunity description). Committee members are encouraged to use the full spectrum of the evaluation scale when assigning scores, as this helps establish rank.

When the full range of expertise required to judge an individual application is not available within the committee, SSHRC may seek additional expertise. For most competitions, committee members will also be provided a form for noting the strengths and weaknesses of each of their assigned applications. Committee members can use these notes when discussing applications during meetings.

The committee members assigned to review an application may be asked to consider the budget proposed for each year of funding to determine, overall, whether the requested amount is appropriate for the project. See Reviewing budget proposals and determining grant size (grant applications only).

Program officers

As SSHRC representatives, program officers serve as a resource for committee members during the merit review process. Throughout the competition, they are responsible for:

ensuring that all applications meet eligibility requirements as described in the relevant funding opportunity description;
assigning applications to committee members;
for some funding opportunities, identifying and recruiting external assessors based on the content of the applications;
providing guidance and advice to members regarding agency guidelines and policies;
ensuring that committee members fully understand and consistently apply all relevant SSHRC policies, evaluation criteria and regulations, and treat each application equitably and fairly;
supporting the committee chair in fostering a respectful, inclusive and barrier-free environment for committee deliberations;
preparing a provisional rank-ordered list of the applications to help guide the group discussions after committee members have completed their preliminary scoring;
serving as meeting secretary and recording: scores and funding recommendations, concerns raised by the committee on issues requiring attention by staff, notes on procedural aspects of the committee’s functions, and feedback on the meeting process and the effectiveness and functioning of the committee as a whole; and
alerting the committee to any problems with specific applications or recommendations and suggesting possible solutions, if necessary.

After the committee meeting, program officers prepare the results packages and feedback for applicants depending on the funding opportunity. They respond to applicant questions and complaints on competition results, as well as inquiries on the appeals process.

SSHRC observers

SSHRC can invite observers to attend merit review committee meetings to make recommendations to SSHRC management on SSHRC policies, procedures, evaluation criteria, etc. Observers do not participate in committee discussions are subject to the conflict of interest and confidentiality agreement.

Committee meeting process

Most SSHRC merit review committee meetings take place virtually. SSHRC staff make every effort to accommodate committee members’ schedules. Members are encouraged to participate for the entire duration of the meeting.

Committee members are encouraged to contact their program officer at any point during the process if they need additional information.

Before the committee meeting

Review and assessment

As soon as committee members receive their assigned applications, they must check for conflicts of interest and immediately inform the program officer as these applications will need to be reassigned to another committee member (see Managing conflicts of interest).

Committee members submit their preliminary scores to the program officer before the committee meeting. If scores for an application vary significantly among its assigned reviewers, additional committee members may be asked to review it. The program officer compiles preliminary scores for all applications, and produces an initial overall ranking before the committee meeting. The initial ranking provided by the program officer may be used as a tool to determine the order in which applications will be discussed.

Committee members may be asked to provide written comments regarding applications. The program officer will provide further information, if applicable.

For some funding opportunities, SSHRC solicits external assessments to assist the committee in its deliberation. The committee is asked to distance itself from any external assessment received by SSHRC that appears to contain unprofessional, discriminatory or biased comments, and to indicate this in writing when an applicant is provided with feedback.

Orientation

Committee chairs may have an orientation with their program officer before the meeting to clarify their role and responsibilities and to ensure SSHRC policies, procedures and evaluation criteria are consistently applied. Some competitions offer a webinar for committee chairs.

Committee members may be asked to participate in a brief orientation to receive specific details about the merit review process, timelines, relevant materials and the review of applications. They may ask the program officer questions and discuss any issues with their committee colleagues.

Calibration meetings

Several weeks before the adjudication meeting, some committees hold a calibration meeting led by the chair to ensure consistent use of evaluation criteria and scoring. Members review and score a small sample of applications selected by the chair and program officer, with assigned reviewers leading the discussion. Scores are submitted beforehand, and members may adjust them after discussion. These applications may be revisited during the full review, if necessary.

During the committee meeting

Discussing applications

Generally, committee members discuss applications based on preliminary scores, with the first reviewer summarizing the application’s strengths and weaknesses and offering a recommendation. Other reviewers may add comments relevant to the evaluation criteria. When assigned scores differ significantly from those of other reviewers, members must be prepared to briefly explain their reasoning. Members generally discuss any applications where there is a significant discrepancy in scores in greater detail.

Reaching consensus

Based on the discussion, committee members arrive at an overall consensus score for each application. For some opportunities, after reaching consensus, the program officer may consult with the committee to draft brief feedback for the applicant/project director.

Ranking applications

At the end of discussions, the committee reviews and finalizes the rank-ordered list of applications, which is then approved by the chair. After this step, it is no longer possible to change the ranking of any application.

Some funding opportunities have a cutoff point, i.e., applications must have a minimum score or rank to be eligible for funding.

Policy and procedure feedback

Following the meeting, the committee may hold a policy discussion to inform SSHRC staff of any difficulties encountered during the process, discuss best practices, and advise on program and policy issues. Committee members may also be invited to provide their feedback electronically (e.g., through a survey). SSHRC uses feedback from committee members to help improve policies, procedures and processes.

After the committee meeting

SSHRC’s senior management approves the funding of applications based on the committee’s recommendations and available budget. The overall budget allocation for each funding opportunity is approved by SSHRC’s Vice-President, Research. A list of applications recommended for funding is submitted to the appropriate SSHRC director for approval. As the resources available might not allow for the funding of all meritorious applications, some recommended by the committee may not be funded. These applications could be eligible for support if additional funding becomes available.

Additional information for committee members

Information for all committee members

Future Challenge Areas

SSHRC invites all applicants to review Imagining Canada’s Future’s 16 future global challenges and consider addressing one or more of these areas in their research proposal. This is not an evaluation criterion for merit review and does not offer additional or dedicated research funds for funding opportunities.

Guidelines for the merit review of Indigenous research

SSHRC has co-developed a definition of Indigenous research in conjunction with the Indigenous Advisory Circle. If a research application, in any field of study, assigned to any committee, fits this definition of Indigenous research, then the reviewer should assess it against the Challenge, Feasibility and Capability evaluation criteria by consulting the Guidelines for the merit review of Indigenous research. The guidelines are relevant for Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers who conduct research with Indigenous Peoples. They are designed to encourage Indigenous research to be conducted with sensitivity, and only after consideration about who conducts the research and why and how it is conducted. The guidelines complement information in the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS-2 [2022]), in particular, Chapter 9: Research Involving the First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples of Canada.

Contact the SSHRC program officer if you have any additional questions regarding the use of Indigenous research guidelines within a specific funding opportunity.

Guidelines for effective research training

The Guidelines for effective research training are applicable to research activities funded across all SSHRC funding opportunities. They are designed to assist the research community in promoting effective research training and career development. Committee members are encouraged to use the guidelines to help gauge the quality of research training activities proposed in applications.

Grant applicants proposing training plans and budgets are:

encouraged to use the guidelines to help identify the elements of effective research training; and
asked to include the dimensions of research training that are the most relevant to their research projects and can be of most benefit to all parties involved in their training plans.

SSHRC scholarship and postdoctoral research award applicants are encouraged to consider the guidelines while completing their programs of study or work, as applicable.

The guidelines are especially relevant for:

host institutions preparing the Canada Postdoctoral Research Award Institutional Nomination and Commitment form; and/or
committee members when assessing the effectiveness of the overall support provided by the host institution.

Research-creation

SSHRC welcomes research-creation as an eligible activity across its funding opportunities. See the relevant funding opportunity description and SSHRC’s Guidelines for research-creation support materials for details. In addition, committees for Insight Grants and Insight Development Grants may find it useful to consult the research-creation applicant resource materials specific to these funding opportunities.

Guidance related to artificial intelligence

Regarding use of AI in applications, note that:

SSHRC does not discourage the use of AI in either application development or in research;
whether or not AI has been used in application development, researchers remain responsible for the full content of their applications, including any inaccuracies, misattributions or lack of attribution in their application;
applicants may proactively or inadvertently disclose the use of AI. Known or suspected AI use should not factor into the evaluation; reviewers should focus on whether the project meets program criteria; and
proposing the use of AI in research is a matter of methodology, and reviewers should assess based on their expertise and disciplinary norms.

Reviewers are strictly prohibited from using publicly available generative AI tools for evaluating applications (see section on Personal information in applications).

For reference see Guidance on the use of Artificial Intelligence in the development and review of research grant proposals.

Career interruptions and special circumstances

SSHRC asks its merit review committees to consider career interruptions and special circumstances that have affected applicants’ and co-applicants’ record of research, as defined in the funding opportunity instructions. In doing so, committee members will be able to assess the research experience and contributions of each researcher, postdoctoral researcher or doctoral student more accurately and equitably, independent of any career interruptions or special circumstances in the last six years.

Responsible Research Assessment (Research contributions)

The agencies, the Canada Foundation for Innovation and Genome Canada have signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), reaffirming their commitment to excellence in research evaluation. DORA is part of the global movement for responsible research assessment encouraging assessment of the quality of research on its own merit, rather than through proxy, such as the prestige of a journal in which the research publishes or the institution where the researcher works. Reviewers should avoid using publishing metrics, such as journal impact factor and h-index. Responsible research assessment recognizes that research excellence can take many forms and values a diversity of research approaches, outputs and impacts. Merit review committee members are required to review applications in an equitable manner, with respect for a diversity of viewpoints, schools of thought, disciplines and sub-disciplines, research methodologies and approaches to research design and practice. A diversity of research outputs and impacts includes contributions to training, knowledge mobilization and other indicators of research impact, such as influence on policy and practice.

DORA’s principles are reflected in SSHRC’s overall approaches to research assessment and in its commitment to continuously improve assessment practices. DORA principles are congruent and reinforcing with the Tri-agency Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan and other key policies including ethical conduct of research involving humans, responsible conduct of research, open access publishing, research data management practices, the Guidelines for the merit review of Indigenous research and the Guidelines for effective research training.

Committee members are asked to consider a variety of research contributions, both traditional academic publications and other kinds of services and outputs. Research contributions can include, but are not limited to:

refereed contributions, such as:
- books, monographs, book chapters, articles in scholarly refereed journals, conference proceedings, etc.; and
- papers presented at scholarly meetings or conferences, articles in professional or trade journals, etc.;
non-refereed contributions, such as book reviews, published reviews of the applicant/co-applicant’s work, research reports, policy papers, public lectures, etc.;
forthcoming (submitted, revised and submitted, accepted, or in-press) contributions;
creative outputs (to be evaluated according to established disciplinary standards, as well as creative and/or artistic merit), such as exhibitions, performances, publications, presentations, and film, video and audio recordings; and
other contributions to research and advancing knowledge to non-academic audiences (e.g., general public, policy-makers, private sector, not-for-profit organizations, etc.)

Grant applications only—Capability subcriteria (as listed under Merit Review in the funding opportunity description) should be addressed in the SSHRC CV (as well as in the Research contributions and relevant experience section of the application), the Canadian Common CV or the tri-agency CV (as applicable). They might also be addressed in the main sections of the application or in a Participants involvement section for some funding opportunities, as applicable.

Additional information for grant applications only

Knowledge mobilization plan

SSHRC’s Guidelines for effective knowledge mobilization and the instructions that accompanied the application form are made available to committee members with their merit review materials for context. Committee members are asked to evaluate the knowledge mobilization plan according to the related Feasibility subcriterion.

Open access and data management

In keeping with SSHRC’s endorsement of open access forms of knowledge dissemination, research results should be made openly available when possible. Grant holders must comply with the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications for any peer-reviewed journal publications arising from SSHRC-supported research.

Further to the Tri-Agency Research Data Management Policy, SSHRC expects that research data collected through the use of public funds should be responsibly and securely managed and be available for reuse by others, where ethical, legal and commercial obligations allow.

SSHRC recognizes Indigenous data sovereignty and the importance of a distinctions-based approach to Indigenous research data. See the Tri-Agency Research Data Management Policy for details.

Expected outcomes summary

Expected outcomes are the potential benefits and/or outcomes of the proposed project. Expected outcomes can include, for example:

enhanced curriculum and teaching material;
graduate student supervision;
enriched public discourse;
improved public policies;
enhanced business strategies; and/or
innovations in one or more sectors of society.

Committee members are asked to evaluate the expected outcomes summary according to any related Challenge subcriteria.

Guidelines for support of tools for research and related activities

New and existing tools support the creation and mobilization of research knowledge. SSHRC has long provided support for routine research tools (such as a survey or questionnaire). This is an appropriate use of grant funds according to the Tri-Agency Guide on Financial Administration.

SSHRC’s Guidelines for support of tools for research and related activities are intended to assist researchers submitting requests for support for tools distinct from a typical component of a grant.

Applicants must provide their tool expenses in the “Other” category of the Funds requested from SSHRC section of their application and explain the need for expenditures in the Budget justification section.

Committee members are asked to consider the following in their evaluation of tool funding requests:

Overall: Assess whether the purpose/use of the tools is directly linked to the objectives of the funding opportunity;
Challenge criterion: Evaluate the tool using the “appropriateness of the methods/approach” subcriterion; and
Feasibility criterion: Consider the budget request for the tool.

If the committee determines that the proposed activities relating to the tools cannot be carried out within the stated budget limit, the committee should fail the application on the Feasibility criterion.

Reviewing budget proposals and determining grant size (grant applications only)

Grant funding budgets and process

During the committee meetings for grant funding opportunities, the committee also reviews the budgets requested to determine, overall, if the requested amount is appropriate for the project.

Grants are awarded based on the merit review and funding that the committee recommends and the total funds available for the funding opportunity.

Budget review and grant size

Committees use the principle of minimum essential funding to guide their discussions of project budgets.

Committees are asked to focus on assessing the overall merit of the proposal, regardless of the budget size and scope. Each grant application that has received a passing score for each of the three evaluation criteria (Challenge, Feasibility and Capability) can be recommended for funding.

While considering the Feasibility criterion, the committee should assess whether the proposed budget is reasonable, well-justified and appropriate for carrying out the proposed activities. Weakness in the budget is reflected in the Feasibility score.

For applications recommended for funding, committees can recommend budget reductions or reallocations if they judge that savings could be achieved without jeopardizing the project objectives.

In considering the budget’s appropriateness, committee members can take factors such as the type of institution with which an applicant is affiliated into account. For example, a researcher working at a more isolated institution may assign a larger part of their budget to travel and communications expenses than a researcher located in a major centre.

The committee will not be asked to make any adjustments to the proposed budget of applications not recommended for funding.

Appropriate use of grant funds

SSHRC staff may indicate to the committee (either before or during the meeting) whether expenses are an appropriate use of grant funds.

The Tri-Agency Guide on Financial Administration is a comprehensive resource for grant recipients and administering institutions to ensure they understand the principles and directives that govern post-award administration of agency-funded grants. The guide is applicable to grants from SSHRC, CIHR and NSERC, unless specified otherwise in the funding opportunity literature and any relevant agency agreements, including the grant’s terms and conditions.

Grant applicants must justify all proposed budget expenditures.

In keeping with the agencies’ support of Open Access, article processing charges for publishing in open access journals are an appropriate expense. When assessing estimated article processing charges in application budgets, committees should consider whether the number of proposed journal publications is realistic, the targeted journals are appropriate, and the estimated costs are commensurate with the article processing charges of the specified journals (when known). When there are options for less expensive journals of equal quality or for self-archiving, committees could consider recommending budget reductions.

Book processing charges for publishing scholarly books in open access are also an appropriate expense. When assessing estimated book processing charges, committees should consider whether the book publication plan is realistic and the targeted publisher appropriate. Committees are further asked to keep in mind that book processing charges can vary widely and depend on factors such as inclusion of images and publication format.

Committees are encouraged to speak to their program officer if they require more information.

Multiple-source funding

Committee members are reminded that grant applicants can fund their overall research project or research-related activities by applying for complementary funding from more than one source for different components of the project, and that such funding is not grounds for reducing an applicant’s budget.

For Insight Grant and Insight Development Grant applications, the availability or anticipation of funding from another source, while considered generally beneficial, is not obligatory. The appropriateness of other sources depends on the specific needs of the project.

Applicants must clearly indicate to SSHRC that there is no duplication of financial support for any budget items in their proposals.

Useful links

Learn more about SSHRC and its mandate.
See the complete list of policies, regulations and guidelines relevant to the work of SSHRC merit reviewers.
SSHRC’s Research Training and Talent Development, Insight Research, Research Partnerships and Imagining Canada’s Future pages provide information about the programs through which SSHRC funding opportunities are offered.
Information specific to individual funding opportunities (including their merit review) is available in their funding opportunity description.

Page details

From:

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council

Date modified:: 2025-09-29