Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Symbol of the Government of Canada

Common menu bar links

Subatomic Physics Discovery Grants Program (Individual, Team, Project)

Instructions to Referees – Form 140

Before Proceeding

Please read the  Instructions to Referees on the Privacy Act, Confidentiality and the Use and Disclosure of Information.

Note: Your signature on the paper version of the review form, or transmission of your final evaluation to NSERC either by mail or by using the electronic evaluation process, means that you have read these instructions and that you consent to these uses and disclosures.

In addition, you may refer to:

Information on the following topics is provided below:

About Adobe Reader

To read the PDF version you need Adobe Reader 5.0 (or later) on your system. Acrobat Reader is available from the This link will take you to another Web site Adobe Reader download page.

Conflict of Interest

If you are in a conflict of interest, or for any other reason unable to act as a referee, please contact us directly, or send us an e-mail at as soon as possible. In order to identify yourself and the application(s) you are unable to review, please indicate your Personal Identification Number (PIN) and the committee and application number in the SUBJECT line of your e-mail message.

Suggested referees should not be in a conflict of interest. Refer to the This link will take you to another Web site Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy of the Federal Research Funding Organizations for more information. In addition, referees (external reviewers) must sign the This link will take you to another Web site Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement for Review Committee Members, External Reviewers, and Observers before they access the application material.

Allegations of Misconduct

Allegations of misconduct must be treated separately from the peer review process. Should your review reveal concerns of possible misconduct, please report any allegation separately to the Research Ethics Coordinator. Your report should only address the application and selection criteria and make no mention of the misconduct concerns.

How to Evaluate the Proposal

Please assess the proposal using the evaluation criteria described below. For each criterion, please provide your comments in the text box located on the Referee Report/Application for a grant (Form 140).

Note on student identification: Applicants should not be penalized for not having the specific names of students if generic information is provided. NSERC requires applicants to obtain consent forms from students before including their names on a Personal Data Form (Form 100). As this is not always feasible, applicants also have the option of providing information on students without providing their names (this information might be more generic).

Evaluation criteria

Base your detailed comments on the headings provided below.

  • Scientific or engineering excellence of the researcher(s)

    Applicants must present evidence of meaningful contributions to the field in the past six years. Referees can consider contributions made over the past 10 years for researchers with only a non-academic background in research and training (e.g., government or private sector). This criterion comprises several of the following elements that reflect the researcher’s contributions to the field:

    • knowledge, expertise and experience;
    • past or potential contribution to, and impact on, the proposed and other areas of research;
    • importance of contributions to, and use by, other researchers and end-users;
    • ideas generated;
    • extent to which the work advanced the field (i.e., created significant changes in thought within the research areas and/or influenced the activities of users);
    • complementarity of expertise of the members of the team and synergy (where applicable).

    For team applications, comment on the team as a whole, with reference to individuals as appropriate.

  • Merit of the proposal

    Highlight the strong and weak points and provide detailed comments on the following, as appropriate:

    • originality and innovation; extent to which the proposal suggests and explores novel or potentially transformative concepts and lines of inquiry;
    • significance and expected contributions to research; potential for technological impact;
    • clarity and scope of objectives;
    • clarity and appropriateness of methodology;
    • feasibility; and
    • extent to which the scope of the proposal addresses all relevant issues including the need for varied expertise within or across disciplines.

  • Contribution to the training of highly qualified personnel (HQP)

    Contributions to quality training at all levels—including undergraduate and graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, technicians and research associates—are valued. Assessment of contributions to the training of HQP includes both the record (past) and the plans. In assessing a researcher’s “Contributions to the Training of HQP,” the following elements should be considered:

    • quality and extent of past and potential contributions to the training of HQP (e.g., postdoctoral fellows, graduate and undergraduate students, technicians);
    • appropriateness of the proposal for the training of HQP;
    • enhancement of training arising from a collaborative or interdisciplinary environment (where applicable).

  • Need for funds

    In the assessment of this criterion, the following elements should be considered:

    • appropriateness of and justification for the budget;
    • availability of other sources of funding and their relationship to the current proposal; and
    • special needs related to the nature of collaborative activities or infrastructure costs such as user fees.