Review and Evaluation Process

Updated April 2026

 

ResearchNB’s review process is guided by the following principles.

Excellence: Applications are assessed on merit, innovation, and potential impact. Reviewers are selected based on subject matter expertise and experience in grant reviewing.

Fairness: All applicants are treated equitably, and all efforts are taken to minimize and mitigate bias in the review process. Applications are reviewed by more than one person. Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest including professional or personal relationships with applicants and recuse themselves where necessary.

Transparency: The evaluation criteria are clear and accessible to all stakeholders through the application portal and website. Applicants also have access to reviewers’ feedback through the online portal once the Notice of Decisions are sent out.

Confidentiality: All application materials and review discussions are treated as confidential. Non-Disclosure Agreements are signed by all reviewers before accessing the portal and any application materials.

ResearchNB continues to make improvements to the review and evaluation process to ensure that the review process upholds the values and mission of ResearchNB.

Review Process

Eligibility Review

Applications are screened for eligibility and completeness by the Program Manager. Ineligible or incomplete applications are excluded from further review. In these cases, applicants will receive an email from the Program Manager explaining why their application is not eligible. 

External Review

Depending on the program, ResearchNB uses two types of external reviews: expert-level review or peer-level review. The type of review used for each program is stated in the evaluation criteria found on the program specific webpage, in addition to the evaluation questions and scoring rubric.  

  • Expert-level review: Expert-level reviewers are subject-matter experts who hold a Master’s-level degree or higher in their respective field. Each application is assessed by at least two (2) reviewers, with a minimum of one reviewer having expertise in the same priority sector as the application. 
  • Peer-level review: Peer reviewers are subject-matter experts who hold a Doctor of Philosophy degree in their field. Each application is assessed by at least two (2) reviewers, with a minimum of one reviewer having expertise in the same priority sector as the application. 

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected by the Program Manager based on their expertise in relevant fields, either through online screening or from a list of past reviewers. The qualifications of each reviewer will align with the specific level of review being conducted. Most reviewers are selected from outside of the province of New Brunswick. If a reviewer is from New Brunswick, they cannot be employed by or affiliated with any of our eligible institutions.    

Alignment Meeting

For programs using an expert review, after external reviews are completed, an alignment meeting will be held between the reviewers and the Program Manager for each round. The purpose of the meeting is to gather additional feedback on applications, provide reviewers with an opportunity to consider other reviewers’ perspectives, address scoring discrepancies, and work toward a general consensus.  

For programs using a peer review, an alignment meeting is only conducted if: 

  • An application receives one score above the meritorious cut off score and one below. 
  • If reviewers score above the meritorious cut off score and there is a greater than 20% differential. 

Decision-Making

Funding decisions are based on the ranked list of applications resulting from review, subject to budget threshold. A few exceptions to this include: 

Student Support Fund 

  • Applications are first scored and ranked using the 5-point Likert scale. Any application that is ranked within the top 50% of the budget threshold will be directly funded, and the remaining fundable applications are selected using a lottery.   

Requests above $200,000 

  • Any award of $200,000 requires approval by ResearchNB’s Board of Directors.  

Conflict of Interest

To minimize bias or potential conflict of interest, reviewers are generally selected from outside of New Brunswick and not have collaborated with or published with the applicant and/or co-applicants on a project in the past six (6) years. If a reviewer is from New Brunswick, they cannot be employed by or affiliated with any of our eligible institutions. Reviewers sign a Reviewer Code of Conduct and declare any conflicts of interest prior to reviewing each application. If a reviewer does declare a conflict of interest, they will be removed from reviewing the application in which they declared a conflict.

Reviewer Feedback

ResearchNB provides reviewers with program-specific instructions through a reviewer guidance document to support efficient, consistent, and objective assessments that reflect the program’s goals and evaluation criteria. Reviewers are also encouraged to provide a short rationale of scores given to each section of the application. 

Reviewers are expected to provide feedback to applicants. Feedback from reviewers can be accessed on the portal once the notice of decision is issued. 

Evaluation Process

Each program is scored on a set of publicly available evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria are designed based on the goals of each funding program. The criteria, assessment questions, scoring rubric, and review process type can be found on each of the program’s specific pages, under Core Funding Programs. 

Applications are scored using the following two methods: 

T-score method: 

  • The T-score scoring method will be used for expert-level reviews. Each reviewer’s scores are averaged across the evaluation criteria. Averaged scores will then be converted to T-scores. The final score for each application is the average T-score across all reviewers, which is then used to rank applications. T-scores will be ranked in order from highest to lowest. 

Average method: 

  • An average scoring method will be used for peer-level reviews. Criteria will be scored using the above scoring rubric. Each reviewer’s scores are averaged across the evaluation criteria. The final score for each application is the average score across all reviewers, which is then used to rank applications.  

Reflection Process

Applicants may report an issue or complaint to the Chief Operating Officer in the event they identify any shortcomings in the review process. While ResearchNB cannot make changes on award decisions due to budget constraints, we are committed to meeting with researchers one-on-one to address their concerns and take note of any issues to prevent similar situations in the future. The Chief Operating Officer and Program Manager will set up a meeting with the complainant to outline all questions and concerns.