PGS/CGS-M review and selection process

  1. Committee members will assess the proposals and provide brief comments on the following criteria:
    1. Eligibility: Confirm that the applicant is an eligible recipient. If not, the application will be selected “Ineligible”.
    2. Quality: In accordance with the program guidelines, applications are assessed according to the following rubric:
Criteria Description Weight
Academic excellence

As demonstrated by past academic results, transcripts, awards and distinctions

Indicators of academic excellence:

  • academic record (GPA)
  • scholarship and awards held
  • duration of previous studies
  • type of program and courses pursued
  • course load
  • relative standing (if available)
 50%
Research potential

As demonstrated by your research history, your interest in discovery, the proposed research, its potential contribution to the advancement of knowledge in the field and any anticipated outcomes

Indicators of research potential:

  • quality and originality of contributions to research and development
    • Peer-reviewed publications
    • Conference presentations
    • Other academic and professional contributions
  • relevance of work experience and academic training to field of proposed research
  • significance, feasibility and merit of proposed research
  • judgment and ability to think critically
  • ability to apply skills and knowledge
  • initiative and autonomy
  • research experience and achievements relative to expectations of someone with your academic experience
 30%
Personal characteristics and interpersonal skills

As demonstrated by your past professional and relevant extracurricular interactions and collaborations

Indicators of personal characteristics and interpersonal skills:

  • work experience
  • leadership experience
  • project management experience including organizing conferences and meetings
  • ability or potential to communicate theoretical, technical or scientific concepts clearly and logically in written and oral formats
  • involvement in academic life
  • volunteerism/community outreach
 20%

Note 1: Committee members should keep in mind differences in student access to guidance while completing their applications: proposal format and choice of referee should be recognized as external to the content of the proposal and reference assessments.

  1. Each committee member will score every application out of 5 in each of the three categories. Scores will then be weighted according to the formula
    • Academic excellence x 0.5 + Research potential x 0.3 + Personal characteristics x 0.2 = Score/10

Note 2: In the case that a committee member has a relevant personal or professional connection to an applicant (e.g. relative or potential supervisor) that committee member must declare the relationship and refrain from assessment of that application.

  1. The applications will be ranked according to the highest average score, as determined by taking the average of the scores provided by the committee members. The committee will assess the ranking outcome for compliance with the NSERC - Equity, Diversity and Inclusion and Royal Military College of Canada Action Plan on Institutional Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion.
    1. If the ranking could be interpreted as disfavouring a federally-designated employment equity seeking group then the ranking, sub-rankings, and application files will be forwarded to the RMC EDIO for review before the ranking is finalized.
       
  2. In accordance with the RMC institutional quotas:
    1. The top 2 NSERC applications will be selected as “Offered”, and
    2. The top 2 SSHRC applications will be selected as “Offered”.
       
  3. Non-meritorious applications may only be selected as “Not Offered” by unanimous consensus of the committee members.
     
  4. Applications that are not “Offered” or “Not Offered” will be selected as “Alternate”.
     
  5. Applicants will not receive feedback on their applications unless requested. Those who do request comments will receive generalized, anonymized feedback from the committee chair. Specific comments made by committee members during assessment or deliberation will remain confidential.
    1. In the case of a complaint, specific comments made by committee members may be made available to the VPR, EDIO, or other designated investigating authority.
Date modified: