2024 NordForsk-led International Joint Initiative on Sustainable Development of the Arctic: New Frontiers in Research Fund Review Process

This document describes the New Frontiers in Research Fund (NFRF) review process for the 2024 NordForsk-led International Joint Initiative on Sustainable Development of the Arctic. It is intended to explain the review process and provide a guide for reviewers involved in the assessment of applications.

This international joint initiative represents a collaboration among research funders from Canada, Denmark, the Faroe Islands, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and the United States.

Members of the NFRF review panel are asked to read the relevant sections of this document before beginning to review applications assigned to them. You may ask for clarification on any subject from NFRF program staff at any time.

Overview of the 2024 NordForsk-led International Joint Initiative on Sustainable Development of the Arctic

The Arctic region has seen and continues to see rapid and drastic changes, mostly due to climate change, which has a bigger impact in the Arctic than in the rest of the world. Declining sea ice has also opened new possibilities for transport routes and new opportunities for resource extraction, and led to increased international interest in the region. The direct effects of climate change, as well as these indirect ones, have a significant impact on ecosystems, Arctic communities and traditional ways of living. Through interdisciplinary research projects that include Indigenous perspectives, this call will leverage expertise across Arctic countries to explore approaches to sustainable development in the Arctic, considering aspects such as security, natural resources and societal changes.

Proposals must meet the requirements as set out in the NordForsk call document.

Research teams must submit an application through the NordForsk application portal. Research teams seeking funding from NFRF also have to complete a registration and application in the Convergence Portal.

Note that the NFRF and NordForsk review processes are separate and achieve different purposes. The NFRF review panel assesses what is submitted to NFRF through the Convergence Portal to ensure that the project is eligible to receive funding from NFRF. NordForsk reviews what is submitted to them, based on the overall requirements of the call. Any applications requesting funds from NFRF that do not pass the NFRF eligibility review will be removed from the NordForsk rankings.

NFRF will only fund Indigenous co-developed, co-led projects. All projects are required to partner with a participating community or communities in the co-creation, implementation and ownership of the research and outcomes, and to develop approaches related to knowledge mobilization and community uptake. To reflect this, the Canada-based team must have a minimum of two cop-principal investigators (co-PIs), including the nominated principal investigator (NPI) and a co-PI who is a representative of the community or region where the research will take place and/or the community that has requested and will benefit from the research findings.

For further details on the call, including eligibility requirements, see the NFRF competition overview. The instructions for the registration and full application provide more details on the information required at each stage of the competition.

Competition stages

To apply to this call, teams must submit a registration to NFRF by May 30, 2024. The Canadian research teams must then submit a full application to NFRF by December 3, 2024.

The registration and application processes through the Convergence Portal do not replace the NordForsk-led review process.

The registration step is required to assess the eligibility of the Canada-based research team to receive funding from NFRF.

Applications will be reviewed to ensure that proposals meet the requirements for the research activity that will take place in Canada:

• research conducted in Canada must be co-developed and co-led with Indigenous communities; and
• projects must have integrated equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in the research design.

Principles of merit review

Full applications are assessed by a review panel, to which the following principles apply.

Fairness

The success of the merit review system depends on the willingness and ability of all reviewers in the process to be fair and reasonable; to exercise rigorous judgment; and to understand—and consider in a balanced way—the context of each application.

Bias

All reviewers are asked to consistently guard against the possibility of unconscious bias influencing the decision-making process, whether this bias is based on a school of thought; fundamental versus applied research; certain subdisciplines; areas of research or approaches (including emerging ones); size or reputation of an institution; or the age, personal factors, sex or gender of the applicants. All reviewers are cautioned against judging an application based on these factors. Before review panel members are able to view any applications, they must first complete the required Unconscious Bias Training Module.

Conflict of interest and confidentiality

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 review process and, during the review process, ensures the confidentiality of personal and commercial information submitted to the program.

Conflict of interest

Members are responsible for evaluating the merits of applications assigned to them for review, except for those for which they have a conflict of interest.

A conflict of interest is a conflict between a person’s duties and responsibilities as a participant in the review process and that person’s private, professional, business or public interests. There may be a real, perceived or potential conflict of interest when the review panel member, external reviewer, referee or observer:

• would benefit professionally or personally if the application being reviewed is funded;
• has a professional or personal relationship with any of the applicants (this includes NPIs, co-PIs, co-applicants and collaborators) or applicants’ institutions; or
• has a direct or indirect financial interest in the application being reviewed.

A conflict of interest may be deemed or perceived to exist when a review panel member, external reviewer or observer:

• is a relative or close friend, or has a personal relationship with any of the applicants;
• is in a position to gain or lose financially/materially from the funding of the application;
• has had longstanding scientific or personal differences with any of the applicants;
• is currently affiliated with any of the applicants’ institutions, organizations or companies—including research hospitals and research institutes;
• is professionally affiliated with any of the applicants as a result of having in the last six years:
  • had frequent and regular interactions with any of the applicants in the course of their duties at their department, institution, organization or company;
  • been a supervisor or a trainee of any of the applicants;
  • collaborated, published or shared funding with any of the applicants, or made plans to do so in the near future; or
  • been employed by any of the applicants’ institutions; and/or
• feels for any reason unable to provide an impartial review of the application.

All review panel members are subject to the same conflict of interest guidelines. If any of these situations apply, the member must declare a conflict of interest. NFRF staff are responsible for resolving areas of uncertainty. A conflict of interest can be declared at any time during the competition cycle. Contact NFRF program staff if your conflict of interest status changes.

Confidentiality

The information included by applicants in their applications is protected by Canada’s Privacy Act and is provided for the purposes of review only. Details of the application, scoring and recommendation for a specific application are confidential and must never be divulged. Under no circumstances should members disclose to anyone the recommendations from the scoring; this also applies after the competition is over and award recipients are announced.

Recommendations made by the review panel are subject to approval and may be changed for reasons of budget, administrative error or lack of full adherence to policies.

Review panel members are asked not to communicate any information about the review of a specific application or offer to applicants or anyone outside of the panel or share opinions on the applicants’ chances of success or failure.

In turn, applicants are not to contact review panel members regarding the status of their applications (ratings, rank, etc.). By law, applicants have access to their own application files. Therefore, all written materials used in evaluating an application are made available to the applicants when they are notified of the funding decision. This does not include any notes or feedback a review panel member has provided that were not shared in writing with other review panel members.

Roles and responsibilities

Review panel

The review panel evaluates applications to ensure that the project is deemed eligible from the NFRF perspective. The NFRF review panel will specifically evaluate the applications according to the selection criteria on a pass/fail basis. Applications must pass all three criteria to be deemed eligible to receive funding from NFRF.

Members

Review panel members evaluate applications and, with other members, make recommendations based on their assessments. Specific responsibilities of members include:

• ensuring that they follow the program’s Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy of the Federal Research Funding Organizations before, during and after the evaluations and/or meeting;
• ensuring the integrity and quality of the merit review process, and that each application gets a fair assessment (free of bias and equitable to all applicants) based on the evaluation of all criteria;
• completing the online training module on unconscious bias in peer review;
• participating in preparatory meetings/discussions and information sessions before conducting evaluations and attending the meeting;
• reviewing, in depth, the applications assigned to them;
• ensuring that all documents are considered in their assessments;
• participating in the review of applications assigned to them by providing a verbal assessment to the panel during the meeting, where applicable;
• preparing feedback to applicants, where applicable; and
• ensuring that all review materials provided are handled safely and disposed of according to program policy.

Co-chairs

Co-chairs are responsible for ensuring that the review panel deliberations function smoothly, effectively and objectively, according to the call’s policies. The co-chairs establish a positive, constructive and fair-minded environment in which the applications are evaluated. They fulfill an oversight role and participate in the review of applications.

The co-chairs’ responsibilities include:

• ensuring that the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy of the Federal Research Funding Organizations is followed before, during and after the meeting;
• ensuring the integrity and quality of the merit review process, and that each application receives a fair assessment (free of bias and equitable to all applicants) based on the evaluation of all criteria;
• completing the online training module on unconscious bias in peer review;
• participating in preparatory meetings/discussions and information sessions before the merit review meeting;
• including all assigned members in the discussion of applications;
• ensuring that all documents are considered in the panel’s assessments;
• guiding the panel to a consensus recommendation, where applicable;
• assisting with the preparation of feedback to applicants, where applicable;
• contributing to discussions on policy issues; and
• ensuring that all confidential review materials provided to them are handled safely and disposed of according to program policy.

NFRF staff

NFRF staff are responsible for delivering the competition according to the policies and processes of the call. The staff’s responsibilities include:

• ensuring that the panel follows the program’s Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy of the Federal Research Funding Organizations before, during and after the review meeting;
• ensuring the integrity and quality of the merit review process and that each application gets a fair assessment (free of bias and equitable to all applicants) based on the evaluation of all criteria;
• assigning applications to review panel members;
• providing advice and guidance to the panel on the program’s policies;
• ensuring that all documents are considered in the panel’s assessments;
• keeping notes on procedural aspects of the panel’s functions;
• working with the co-chairs to manage conflicts of interest, where applicable;
• recording concerns raised by the panel on issues requiring subsequent attention by staff;
• ensuring that all review materials provided are handled safely and disposed of according to program policy.

Review process

The purpose of the NFRF application review process is to assess the eligibility of the project from the NFRF perspective.

Evaluation by the review panel

Assignment

Each application is assigned to a minimum of three review panel members. Language abilities and conflicts of interest will be considered in assigning applications to members.

Check for conflicts of interest

Shortly after the deadline, review panel members will receive an email informing them that their list of assignments is ready. Members are asked to log in to the secure SharePoint site, review the application summaries, and indicate if there are any conflicts of interest. Once a member has checked all applications for conflicts, they will be given access to the applications for which they are not in conflict. Reviewers will have access to all applications for which they are not in conflict to aid in discussions, but they will only be assigned 10-14 to evaluate. Some changes to assignments may occur if conflicts of interest are identified by members. If there are any changes, the panel member will be notified by NFRF program staff. Any problems should be brought to the attention of the NFRF program staff as soon as possible, or at any point in the process.

Assessment

Review panel members receive access to all content from the registration and full application.

All assigned applications are to be reviewed and scored according to the merit indicator matrices for the selection criteria:

• Equity, diversity and inclusion in research practice and support of early career researchers (pass/fail)
• High reward (pass/fail)
• Feasibility (pass/fail)

In assessing feasibility, members must consider the approach to Indigenous research and EDI considerations in the research design.

Members may also comment on any areas of concern related to the application.

Result

Applications must pass all three criteria to be deemed eligible to receive NFRF funding. Applications recommended for funding through the NordForsk-led process and deemed eligible for NFRF funding will be recommended to the steering committee. It is anticipated that eight to 10 projects will be recommended for funding through the NordForsk process, and that a maximum of five will be funded by NFRF.

Review panel meetings

The Review Panel meets in a hybrid format to discuss applications. Each discussion is presided over by a co-chair. NFRF program staff are present to help the co-chair and answer program- and policy-related questions.

Discussion of applications

Thirty minutes are allocated to discuss each application. The discussion is moderated by one of the co-chairs, who ensures that all assigned members participate in discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the application according to each criterion. Following discussion, the panel will decide whether it is fundable or not fundable. The decision will be consensus-based.

Feedback to applicants

Concise feedback is prepared for all applications that are discussed at the meetings. One of the reviewers is identified in advance to lead preparation of the feedback for each application.

Review timeline

Applications and review material

Incomplete or non-adherent applications

The onus is on the applicants to provide complete and sufficient information that adheres to the Convergence Portal instructions for attachments and the instructions for completing the registration and full application. Problems related to application content should be brought to the attention of NFRF program staff, which can be done at any point during the competition. To maintain fairness in the competition, applicants must adhere to the guidelines in preparing application materials. If staff determine that information provided is incomplete or does not adhere to guidelines or instructions, the application may be removed from the competition.

Eligibility of applicants

Review panel members who have doubts about a researcher’s eligibility should review the application on the same basis as all others and alert NFRF staff to potential eligibility problems as soon as possible. The eligibility criteria for NFRF applicants can be found in the competition overview.

Indigenous research

Review Panel members must use SSHRC’s Indigenous Research Statement of Principles and Guidelines for the Merit Review of Indigenous Research as references in assessing applications related to or involving Indigenous research. The guidelines are provided to help reviewers build understanding of Indigenous research and research-related activities, and to assist them in interpreting the specific evaluation criteria in the context of Indigenous research.

Merit indicators

The merit indicators include pass/fail indicators for the evaluation criteria. The evaluation scales include references to major points of consideration to guide review panel members toward arriving at a rating for a given criterion.

All applications are evaluated using the same merit indicators. Members are expected to discuss and justify (or adjust) their ratings during the review panel meeting.

Areas of concern

All reviewers can comment about any areas of concern in the application, including ones related to any of the selection criteria, including EDI in research practice; EDI in the research design; Indigenous research; budget; or others.

Note that reviewers must not include any identifying information about the team members (names, research groups, departments, institutions, etc.) when entering their comments in the Evaluation form.

Budget

While the proposed budget is not assessed as part of the selection criteria, it may be reviewed and discussed, particularly where it may affect the feasibility of completing the research with the proposed resources.

Handling documents used in peer review

Merit review documents contain personal information as well as information that the unauthorized disclosure of 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 subject to regulation under Canada’s 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. Refer to the Guide on Handling Documents Used in Peer Review for further details.

How to access applications for review

All review panel members will access the applications for review through a secure SharePoint site. Detailed instructions will be provided.

Legal and ethical information

Responsible conduct of research

Canada’s 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)—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 sets out the responsibilities and corresponding policies for researchers, institutions and the agencies that, together, help support and promote a positive research environment.

Confidentiality

Members appointed to the review panel must read and agree to the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement for Review Committee Members, External Reviewers, and Observers describing expectations and requirements.

Canada’s Privacy Act

Personal information refers to any information about an identifiable individual. Based on Canada’s Privacy Act, personal information provided by applicants must be used only for assessing applications, making funding decisions, and related uses at the time that their personal information is collected. Members are reminded that the use or disclosure of this information for any other purpose is illegal. It is important for panel members 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. The purpose of the act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect to the principle that all individuals should have opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have. They should also have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Canada’s Official Languages Act

All review panel members and NFRF program staff must be aware of their obligations and rights as legislated in Canada’s Official Languages Act.

A word of thanks

On behalf of the Canada Research Coordinating Committee (CRCC), we would like to thank members of the review panel for agreeing to participate in the review process for the 2024 NordForsk-led International Joint Initiative on Sustainable Development of the Arctic. The success of the review process is made possible by dedicated people like you who generously give your time and expertise. The CRCC and the global research community greatly appreciate your efforts.