Faculty of Medicine

CRC and McGill Internal Awards Information Session

June 5th 2020

Welcome

Dr. Lesley Fellows, Vice Dean, Academic Affairs

Prof. Anne McKinney, Associate Dean, Academic Affairs

Prof. Christian Ilantzis, Senior Strategic Grants Officer, Faculty of Medicine

Dr. Boris Bernhardt, Assistant Prof. Neurology & Neurosurgery. CRC Tier 2 holder.

Faculty of Medicine Academic Affairs Office Administrators:

Craig Sweeney, Heather Owens & Rania Atrini

Internal McGill Awards and Canada Research Chairs

Senior Awards:

-Canada Research Chair Tier 1

-James McGill Professorship

Junior Awards:

-Canada Research Chair Tier 2

-William Dawson Scholar Award

External Awards: Overview of CRCs

Permanent federal program, established in 2000

Invests $300 million a year

72 universities participating in the program

$2.3 billion total investment to date

Allocation-based program: every 2 years there is a national re-allocation process

Based on the research grant funding received by universities from the three granting agencies - CIHR, NSERC, SSHRC - in the 3 years prior to the year of the allocation

Senior Awards: CRC Tier 1 and James McGill Professorships

Profile of JMP/CRC Tier 1 nominees:• Full Professors or Associate Professors who anticipate being

promoted to Full Professor within 2 years of the award being issued• Outstanding and innovative researchers whose accomplishments

have made a major impact in their fields• Recognized internationally as leaders in their fields; • Have superior records of attracting and supervising graduate students

and postdoctoral fellows and, as chair holders, be expected to attract excellent trainees, students and future researchers;

• Proposing an original, innovative research program of the highest quality.

Junior Awards: CRC T2 and William Dawson Scholar Award

Profile of WDS/CRC Tier 2 nominees:• Excellent emerging researchers who have demonstrated particular

research creativity (10 years max since PhD/MD*); • Demonstrated the potential to achieve international recognition in

their fields in the next five to ten years; • Proposing an original, innovative research program of high quality; • Potential to attract excellent trainees, students and future

researchers.

* Authorized leaves will be taken into account, residency training for MDs does not count towards the 10 year max.

Examples of Recent Faculty of Medicine Award Recipients

Tier 1 CRC/ JMP Tier 2 CRC/ WDS

Nada Jabado

Stephen Lomber

Robert Zatorre

Richard Menzies

Stefanie Blain-Moraes

Shirin Enger

Mathieu Maheu-Giroux

Kathleen Rice

Nomination process at a glance

1• Apply with your CV and 3 page research statement (by June 15)

2• Reviewed by Multi-Department Review Panel and top candidates selected

(by July 3)

3• Selected nominees reviewed at Faculty of Medicine level

4• Faculty of Medicine Standing Award Committee selects pool of nominees and

notifies them (by July 10)

5• Nominees enhance application & submit to the Faculty so we can prepare for

submission to the University (By July 27)

6• University deadline for submission to Fall competition (August 10)

Documents required (2)

1) CV- Faculty of Medicine Suggested CV or Canadian Common CV

2) Description of the research program (3 pages max) with these headings:• Executive (lay) Summary (max of 100 words)

• Context, including fit with McGill Strategic Research Plan

• Methodology

• Engagement with research users and communication of results

• Description of proposed training strategies

Note: On the Faculty of Medicine online application there are mandatory fields for referees. Please write A, B & C in these fields. Referees will only be required for the final stage of application to the federal agencies.

How to apply• Academic Affairs websitehttps://www.mcgill.ca/medicine-academic/positionsavailable/other-academic-positions

Where to find help

• Faculty of Medicine Academic Affairs Website

• Full instructions for application

• Answers to frequently asked questions

• Or contact Craig Sweeney at AA office: acadcoor.med@mcgill.ca

Help with the application for submission to the University/Agency

• Christian Ilantzis, Ph.D.Senior Strategic Grants OfficerMcGill University, Faculty of Medicine, McIntyre Medical Sciences Building, Room 6373655 Promenade Sir William Osler,Montreal, Qc H3G 1Y6

Tel: 514-398-4079Fax: 514-398-8807

• christian.ilantzis@mcgill.ca

Main Evaluation criteria

A - Quality of the chairholder and of the proposed program of research

B - Quality of the institutional environment, institutional commitment and integration of the chairholder's research with the university's Strategic Research Plan

Common stumbling blocks

• Premature Tier 2 nominations (more on the next slide)

• Unexplained delays in research

• Lack of rationale for contributions (provide context for choice of venue and evidence of impact for discipline)

• Fit with the research environment (SRP, research centres, infrastructure)

Common stumbling blocks (cont’d)

• Tier 2 premature nomination:

• limited evidence of research independence

• low productivity to date

• lack of direction and clarity of research program

• insufficient knowledge or recognition of existing research

Tips in the Preparation of NominationsInternational stature

♦ Indicate contributions to international conferences, research experience, prizes, etc. to assist reviewers in judging this criterion. The international stature of a nominee is not always self explanatory.

♦ Demonstrated international recognition (or potential)

Experience training and supervising HQP

♦ Experience training and supervising HQP is an important criterion. Provide information that will permit reviewers to determine the nominee’s experience. In the case of Tier 2 nominees, information that reveals the nominee’s potential to train and supervise would be valuable. For example, this information may be provided as anecdotes by one of the referees, for example.

Quality of research proposal

♦Nominations suffer when the research proposal is too vague. While nominees are not asked to describe each research project, they should adequately describe the research issues and how they will be addressed during the tenure of the Chair.

♦Highlight the significance of the proposed research program and clearly indicate the nominee’s role as leader of the program so that it is readily apparent to reviewers that the program is indeed feasible and that the nominee will be able to lead theprogram.

♦ Try to strike a balance between jargon and plain language. The proposal must be accessible to readers with little background in your field and must also be credible to specialists.

♦ Publication strategy with disciplinary context

♦ Impact of work/Significance of contributions