IRIC - Institute for Research in Immunology and Cancer

Published on August 12, 2025

Gregory Emery and David Knapp, directors of the IRIC Vesicular Trafficking and Cell Signalling Research Unit and Cellular Engineering Research Unit, respectively, have both received a special mention for outstanding contribution from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) College of Reviewers. In addition, Gregory Emery was recognized for his outstanding evaluation services during three or more consecutive project grant competitions, a distinction awarded to only 1% of evaluators nationwide. David Knapp received three citations for outstanding contribution. This recognition reflects the remarkable quality of their evaluation work and their constructive participation in committee discussions.

A joint discussion on this little-known but essential role in research:

 

In your words, what does the work of CIHR reviewers involve? 

Gregory Emery (G. E.): In Canada, much of the biomedical research is supported by the CIHR, which holds two regular grant competitions each year. For each competition, more than 2,500 applications are received. With a success rate of approximately one funded application for every six or seven submitted, how can this large number of projects be adequately evaluated? This task is handled by committees of researchers. Each committee receives applications related to its field of expertise, evaluates them, and assigns them a score. This process is referred to as peer review.

David Knapp (D.K.): The work of a CIHR reviewer is twofold. First, we must determine which proposals are scientifically sound and most likely to improve the health of Canadians and humanity in general. Are the experiments logical and do they adequately address the questions raised? Will the team be able to carry them out within the allotted time? Does the researcher have a history of scientific productivity in this field?  Second, we must provide an unbiased and constructive evaluation report for all applications evaluated. This report should summarize what we thought of the proposed project, its strengths and weaknesses. This aspect of the evaluation is probably the one with the greatest impact, as it allows us to help ensure the scientific quality of all projects, not just those that receive funding.

G.E.: Indeed, the goal here is not simply to criticize the application, but to provide suggestions to help the researcher improve their project. To carry out this exercise fairly and impartially, we must learn about the state of research in the relevant field and detach ourselves as much as possible from our biases. The evaluation process takes time, but it allows for constant learning. However, it can be frustrating to see that very high-quality research will not be funded in a competition.

 

Overall, how does peer review contribute to the research ecosystem?

D.K.: It plays a crucial role in the quality control of scientific work carried out and disseminated. Particularly in light of the hyper competitive, novelty-rewarding system currently in place. Peer review is one of the bulwarks that ensures science remains dedicated to discovering what comes closest to the truth.

G.E.: Indeed, if researchers were not involved, who would evaluate research projects? Probably people who would not have the necessary knowledge to assess the quality and importance of the research. There would be a high risk of bias. Fundamental research, for example, whose benefits are only apparent in the long term, would probably see its funding greatly reduced.

 

Why is it important for you to be involved as reviewers? 

G.E.: Participating in project reviews at the CIHR is both a duty and an honor. It is a duty because the system cannot function without peer review. It is also an honor because being invited to serve on a review committee is a form of recognition by our peers.  It is also a privileged position from which to observe the rigor and seriousness with which reviewers approach the process.

D.K.: Like Greg, as a scientist, I consider participating in peer review to be one of my fundamental duties. Like a cancer cell that loses its control mechanisms, the system would be prone to corruption without our active participation in this process. We now know what happens when the truth is twisted; we must actively combat this type of distortion.

 

You are at different stages in your careers; does this work bring you both something as researchers? 

G.E.: Definitely! As evaluators, we have privileged access to the inner workings of projects: the rationale, the techniques proposed, and the perspectives considered by our colleagues. It’s very enriching.  I also enjoy the intellectual exercise of discussing and even debating proposals. Another great satisfaction is meeting new colleagues and discovering their expertise through the committees. New scientific collaborations can even result from this!

D.K.: Absolutely. This opportunity to meet and interact with researchers we might not otherwise have encountered helps to strengthen the country’s scientific community. Participating in the evaluation process also gives us the perspective to critically assess our own work, which allows us to improve our own writing. It’s a great learning experience!

 

What does this mention from the College of Reviewers mean to you? 

G.E.: It’s very gratifying to see our efforts and the time we invest as reviewers being recognized. It’s a behind-the-scenes job that is rarely talked about. Personally, I always question my work as a reviewer; this mention validates my job and motivates me to continue!

D.K.: I would even add that recognition of this type of award for academic promotions or for our own funding applications would be desirable. Unfortunately, this is not the case at the moment, despite the substantial efforts we devote to peer review.

 

What makes you good evaluators?

G.E.: To be honest, I don’t know. With experience, I think I’ve learned to summarize my conclusions effectively, getting straight to the critical points without dwelling excessively on details.

D.K.: To me, a good evaluator provides critical, impartial, and constructive feedback: their job is as much about providing a ranking as it is about help applicants improve their work. I try to hold myself to these ideals when I conduct reviews, and I hope I succeed more often than not!