General Information

Peer Review

All applications are reviewed for scientific merit and relevance to the objectives of the Foundation. The Research Committee receives applications for project grants; the Fellowships Committee receives applications for Fellowships and Studentships. For all project grants and more senior personnel awards the Committees solicit input from external referees. External reviews may be shared between committees. Once the review process is completed and the results are made public, all applicants, with the exception of Studentship applicants, receive an edited version of the reviews.

To receive a favourable rating, an application must:  

• make the case that the work addresses an important mental health problem/issue that is amenable to scientific research; the applicant should point out how the work is relevant to the mission and objectives of the Foundation as stated in this pamphlet (Click here for guidance on addressing the issue of mental health relevance),
• give an excellent scholarly presentation of the theoretical and empirical foundations of the proposed work,
• clearly state the specific research questions that the applicant proposes to answer; if there are hypotheses to be tested, they must be clearly stated and well grounded in existing knowledge and theory,
• clearly describe the methods and justify their appropriateness,
• state how the work makes a contribution to knowledge, policy development, or practice; the applicant should envision the most exciting result that could come from a successful execution of the proposed work and briefly explain the value and potential benefits of that result,
• clearly set out and justify the budget,
• reflect the highest standards of compliance with the ethics of research with human or animal subjects; consent forms must be acceptable to the review committee, and
• show that the human and material resources needed to carry out the work successfully are available to the applicant.

The Foundation will consider all complete applications. Internal reviewers may, following a preliminary review, determine that an application is seriously deficient or noncompetitive. Should this occur, we will send the applicant an edited version of the written reviews but the Committee will not discuss the application in detail at its annual review meeting.

Appeals

The sole basis for an appeal of all Foundation's grant, fellowship, or other funding decisions is improper procedure. The function of the Appeal Process is not to adjudicate scientific disagreements among applicants and peer reviewers. The Appeal Process is designed to ensure that the established and published procedures for the review of applications were followed. The sole remedy available of a successful appeal of a Foundation decision will be an amendment to the procedures of the Foundation.  

An applicant wishing to make an appeal of a grant, fellowship, or other funding decision must notify the Executive Director within 10 days of the applicant's receipt of the notification of the funding decision. The written notification must cite the specific decision and include a brief statement of the procedural defect giving rise to the appeal.  

The Executive Director will review the claim, the procedures followed in reaching the specific decision, and will consult, where applicable, with the Chair of the relevant Committee to determine if the procedures of the Foundation were appropriately applied. The applicant will be notified by letter by the Executive Director of the result of the review within 30 days of the receipt of the letter of appeal.

A further appeal of the Executive Director's decision may be requested; the review will be carried out by the Executive Committee of the Board.

Copyrights and Patents

The ownership of, and all rights to, all industrial and intellectual property which may be generated from activities that Foundation funds have supported in whole or in part, will be determined as follows:

1. If the sponsoring institution receiving an award has an established policy relating to industrial and intellectual property, and the policy is acceptable to the Foundation, the ownership and rights to such property will be determined according to this policy.
2. If the sponsoring institution receiving an award has no such established policy, or if its policy is not satisfactory to the Foundation, the following policy relating to industrial and intellectual property will apply:
• All such industrial and intellectual property will belong to the Foundation. The exceptions to this are set out in (d) and (e) below.
• The Foundation has the right to require that grant recipients make applications for patents, trade marks, copyrights, etc., relating to any such industrial and intellectual property. The Foundation also has the right to require that the necessary assignment of any right be made for this purpose.
• The Foundation will not recognize individual interest in any industrial or intellectual property. Any proceeds from such property arising from sale, royalty, licenses or otherwise, will belong to the Foundation. The Foundation will devote these proceeds to the promotion of research in the field of mental health preferably, though not necessarily, in the originating institution.
• If the Foundation decides not to seek patents, trade marks, etc., relating to any such industrial or intellectual property it will, on the request of the institution, release its interest in this property.
• The copyright in any book or scientific publication will belong to the author, subject only to the following:
1. The Foundation will have the right to review any writing before publication, to determine if any rights to industrial or intellectual property will be prejudiced by the publication.
2. The Foundation will have a royalty-free license to reproduce any extract from such copyrighted material, in any publication it has sponsored. The Foundation may also publish content from final or progress reports the grantee has submitted.

Accountability

While submissions are welcome from applicants who are not institutionally based, these applicants must have an acceptable mechanism for scientific, ethical, and financial accountability, as well as meeting the standards of excellence expected of all applicants.  

Members of the Peer Review Committees

top