CCHCSP uses a systematic and rigorous selection process for admission into the program. The timelines and processes are outlined below.
|Event||April Competition||November Competition|
|Deadline to apply||April 1st||November 1st|
|Reviews sent out to reviewers||April 7th||November 7th|
|Selection telecom to review applicants||Late May||Late December|
|Applicants receive written peer reviews||1 week post teleconference||1 week post teleconference|
|Interviews for potential candidates||4 weeks post teleconference||4 weeks post teleconference|
|Notice of funding to interviewed candidates||5 weeks post teleconference (early July)||5 weeks post teleconference (early February)|
- Administrative Review: Program Manager will perform administrative review to make sure all components of application are complete. Incomplete applications will not be accepted.
- Paper review at home: Selection committee Chair will assign 1-3 reviewers for each application, taking into account potential conflicts of interest. Applications will be reviewed based on the following criteria: research proposal, research training environment, and strength of the candidate experience. Each will be scored on a 0 to 5 point scale. Reviewers will most likely have no specific content expertise in the research area of the applicant. Given the nature of each application and small pool of Selection Committee members, at times Committee members from the same Institution as the applicant will be included as a reviewer. Every attempt will be made to mitigate this bias when possible.
- Selection Committee Teleconference: For applicants with a low average score and scores were consistent among all reviewers, the Selection Committee Chair may request to triage the application. If approved by both reviewers and the reader, this applicant will not be discussed. The score for triaged applicants varies and will not be released.
- Applications with disparity in scoring between reviewers will be discussed. All the committee members will score each discussed application, plus or minus 0.5, around a consensus score agreed upon by primary reviewers.
- Interview call: Applicants scoring greater than or equal to 4.0 will be invited for an interview. In exceptional circumstances where there is variability in scoring or disagreement amongst committee members regarding the merit of an application, applicants will be invited for interview even if they score lower than 4.0.
- Interview preparation: Candidates who will be interviewed are requested to address any outstanding issues from the written reviews at the interview, either in written or oral format.
- Interview day and ranking: Interviews will be conducted by a partial Selection Committee panel. Candidates will be scored on a 5 point scale based on their vision for a scientific career, ability to clearly articulate the research project and put it into broader context of research in the field, address any reviewer comments raised in the written reviews, describe mentorship plan, and discuss interdisciplinary integration potential for their project. Based on post interview discussions and average panel scores, a rank order will be determined for fundable candidates.
- Executive Committee Approval: The rank order will be presented, and funding cut off will be discussed and approved at the Executive Committee. This decision will be based on funding availability and recommendations from the Director and Selection Committee Chair.
- Notice of Award: Following the Executive vote, notification letters will be sent to the interviewed candidates.