Skip to main content

Seed grant evaluation process

This page provides an overview of the process used by Volt-Age to evaluate seed funding applications.

A graphic showing the five steps of the seed grant evaluation process. Step 1: Eligibility review by the adminsitrative team and proposal categorization. Step 2: External peer review. Step 3: Project anonymization. Step 4: Scientific Committee recommendation. Step 5: Advisory Board approval.

Eligibility Review by the administrative team and proposal categorization

Applications were received by the Volt-Age administrative team and underwent an initial review to verify completeness and assess the eligibility of the projects for the seed Ggant based on the criteria listed in the call for proposals. The final theme/platform under which a proposal was evaluated was decided by the Scientific Committee, while considering the applicants' preferences.

External peer review

Peer reviews were done by external reviewers: Independent Reviewers (IR), recommended by the applicants, and Master Reviewers (MR), recommended by members of the Scientific Committee (SC), considering their expertise in their respective fields. The MRs took into account reviews by the Independent Reviewers. All MRs took necessary steps to avoid any instances of conflict of interest. All MRs and IRs used the same standardized template encompassing criteria to ensure scientific quality, quality of teams and partnerships, impact, foundational equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) principles, as well as a realistic execution plan for successful implementation. The use of the evaluation template ensured consistency in evaluation across all projects.

Project Anonymization

All submitted projects were anonymized by the administrative team to ensure impartial evaluation. Members of the Scientific Committee did not have access to the identities of the principal investigators or project names during the evaluation process. Only the external reviewers were provided with full access to project applications.

Scientific Committee Recommendation

Anonymized projects were rated based on a standardized criterion, including the scientific quality of the proposal as rated by the MRs and non-academic partner contributions. Other factors considered included the presence of Indigenous partners and the fair distribution between institutional partners, and between the themes and platforms. Based on the above, several funding scenarios were proposed by the administrative team to the Scientific Committee which made recommendations to the Advisory Board.

Advisory Board Approval

The Advisory Board approved the proposed funding scenario, adhering to the principles of fair distribution across themes and platforms and between partner institutions.

For more information, contact the team at

Back to top

© Concordia University