Review Process

1. An initial screening will be conducted by the Research and Learning Coordinator and the Network Coordinator on the submitted proposals to ensure they meet the mandatory requirements.
2. Shortlisted proposals will be accessible to you through our Platform. Please review the Guidelines for Reviewers before proceeding with the reviews.
3. Each proposal is to be reviewed by all the reviewers independently and completed by November 8, 2026.
4. The Research and Learning Coordinator will prepare a consolidated scoring summary for the panel. The summary will show each reviewer’s criterion-level scores, overall weighted score, and preliminary recommendation for each proposal. Reviewer scores will remain disaggregated so that areas of convergence and material differences between reviewers are visible to the panel.
5. A moderation and portfolio review session will be hosted in the week of November 9th, 2026 (details to be confirmed). The moderation session is not intended to reconcile or alter individual reviewer scores. It gives the panel an opportunity to review the aggregated assessment results, examine material differences between reviewers, and consider the evidence supporting the overall assessment.
6. The moderation session will conclude with a portfolio assessment of the proposals of the qualified institutions to determine which combination will create the strongest Network by considering factors mentioned in the RFP.
7. The reviewer panel will make the final recommendation on the network composition and selected institutions.

Before you begin

1. Please review the Conflict-of-Interest Declaration tab before starting the review process. Kindly review the list of applicants emailed to you and disclose any conflict of interest to the Research and Learning Coordinator by emailing mcfrlcoord@queensu.ca
2. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and must not discuss scores before committee deliberation.
3. Please read the full proposal and the Proposal Evaluation Rubric before beginning to score.
4. You do not need to complete the form sequentially. It may be easier to read the complete proposal first, make brief notes, and then return to the scoring criteria.
5. Consider both demonstrated commitment/action and the potential for Network participation to produce meaningful change.
6. For each of the seven categories in the Proposal Review Rubric, as per the Request for the Proposal:
• Rate each question using the 0–5 scale. If you have a conflict of interest with an applicant or institution, please select “No score Assigned (Conflict of Interest)”
• Consider evidence from anywhere in the proposal or appendices, not only the corresponding proposal section.
• After scoring the questions, please provide a concise overall assessment comment (2–3 bullets) highlighting the evidence that most influenced your scores, including any significant strengths, gaps or concerns.
• The questions under each category are intended to guide your assessment. Reviewers should assess the quality and strength of the evidence presented, rather than simply whether a topic is mentioned.
7. Additional Context is a qualitative section. This section is not scored and will capture information relevant to Network composition. These comments will be helpful in proposal moderation discussions as well.
8. All recommended proposals from the preliminary stage will be included in the moderation and portfolio review process with the panel of reviewers.
9. Feedback for the applicants is the only portion of the evaluation that will be shared with the applicants anonymously. The rest of the Evaluation Rubric is confidential.

Conflict of Interest Declaration

A conflict of interest may arise when a reviewer’s personal, professional, financial, or institutional interests could affect, or reasonably be perceived to affect, their ability to provide an impartial assessment of a proposal.

• is currently employed by, affiliated with, or otherwise formally connected to an applicant institution;
• has a close personal or professional relationship with an applicant or individuals directly involved in the proposal;
• has supervised, collaborated with, worked closely with, published with, shared funding with, or been employed by an applicant or applicant institution;
• has a direct or indirect financial, professional, or material interest in the outcome of the proposal;
• stands to gain or lose professionally, financially, or materially as a result of an applicant institution being selected;
• has an ongoing professional relationship, dispute, or other circumstance involving an applicant or applicant institution that could reasonably be perceived as affecting their impartiality; or
• for any other reason, feels unable to provide an independent and impartial assessment of the proposal.

Disclosure and Management of Conflicts

Reviewers are expected to promptly disclose any real, potential, or perceived conflict of interest to the Research and Learning Coordinator at mcfrlcoord@queensu.ca. If you are unsure whether a conflict exists, please disclose the circumstances rather than making that determination independently.

Reviewers with a declared conflict of interest may still review the proposal and participate in evaluation and moderation discussions. However, they must not assign scores to the application. Instead, reviewers should select “No Score Assigned (Conflict of Interest)” for all scoring criteria within the Evaluation Rubric.

Institutional proposals should be assessed solely on the information provided in the application. Reviewers with a conflict of interest are encouraged to contribute qualitative feedback, observations, and comments, which may be considered during the moderation and proposal review discussions. These comments will not influence the proposal's score.

As conflicts of interest may only become apparent after reviewing an application, reviewers will have a second opportunity to declare a conflict of interest within the Proposal Evaluation Rubric. This includes situations where a reviewer recognizes an applicant, institution, or identifies another real, potential, or perceived conflict. If a conflict is declared at this stage, the reviewer may continue reviewing the application and provide qualitative feedback, but should select “No Score Assigned (Conflict of Interest)” for all scoring criteria.

Important Dates

1. Application deadline: October 26, 2026, 5 pm EDT
2. Reviewers review the proposals: October 27 - November 8, 2026
3. Proposal review and moderation (virtual): November 9th 2026 and November 11th 2026
4. Declaration of results: November 13, 2026

FAQ

Q1. What materials should I review before beginning my assessment?
Before beginning the review process, please familiarize yourself with the Request for Proposal, Advance Planning Guide, Conflict of Interest Declaration Form, and list of invited institutions.
Please read the full proposal and Proposal Evaluation Rubric before assigning scores. You do not need to complete the evaluation form sequentially. We recommend reading the full proposal first, making brief notes as needed, and then returning to the rubric to assess and score each criterion.

Q2. What should I do if I realize that I have a conflict of interest with the submitting author or institute?
Reviewers will have a second opportunity to declare a conflict of interest if they recognize an applicant, institution, or identify any other real, perceived, or potential conflict. This declaration can be made within the Proposal Evaluation Rubric.
If you declare a conflict of interest, please complete only the qualitative comment sections and select “No Score Assigned (Conflict of Interest)” for all scoring criteria.
If you have any questions regarding conflict of interest declarations or the recusal process, please contact Dr. Mandeep Gabhi, Research and Learning Coordinator, at mcfrlcoord@queensu.ca.

Q3. How will I review and evaluate the proposals?
Please review each proposal against the criteria and guidance provided in the evaluation rubric. Assign a score for each scored criterion and provide comments where requested, based on the evidence presented in the proposal. You will be presented with information submitted by each applicant and the corresponding Proposal Evaluation Rubric through the platform.

Q4. Should my comments explain the rationale for the scores I assign?
Yes. Your comments should briefly explain the reasoning behind your assessment and highlight the key evidence, strengths, gaps, or considerations that informed your score. This will help support a transparent and constructive moderation discussion at the later stage.

Q5. What should I do if there is insufficient information to assess a criterion?
If the proposal does not provide enough information to fully assess a criterion, evaluate it based on the information available and note the missing or insufficient evidence in your comments. Please do not make assumptions about information that is not included in the proposal.

Q6. Are proposal materials and reviewer discussions confidential?
Yes. Proposal materials, reviewer assessments, scores, comments, and moderation discussions must be treated as confidential and used solely for the purposes of the review process. These materials should not be shared outside the authorized review team.
At the end of each Proposal Evaluation Review, reviewers will have an opportunity to provide feedback and comments for applicants. All feedback shared with applicants will be anonymous, and reviewer identities will not be disclosed.

Q7. Should proposals be evaluated only on the information provided in the application?
Yes. Please base your assessment on the information and supporting materials submitted as part of the application. Reviewers should not independently research institutions or use prior knowledge of an institution to influence their assessment.

Q8. How will reviewer scores and comments be considered during moderation?
Reviewer scores and comments will provide the starting point for moderation. Please note, that the proposals must meet the minimum thresholds i.e. receive at least 60/100 overall (i.e. 60%), receive at least 12/20 in Institutional Commitment and Leadership, and receive at least 12/20 in Transformation Potential.
The moderation discussion will allow reviewers to discuss their assessments, consider significant differences in scoring, and ensure that the evaluation criteria have been interpreted and applied consistently across proposals.

Q9. How will portfolio-level considerations be incorporated into the final review?
Portfolio-level considerations will be discussed during moderation after proposals have been assessed against the evaluation criteria. This discussion will consider how qualified proposals collectively contribute to the overall strength and diversity of the Network, including factors such as regional and linguistic representation, disciplinary strengths, innovation, refugee inclusion, and representation of underserved contexts. Portfolio considerations will complement, rather than replace, the proposal-level assessment.

Q10. How do I access the proposals as a reviewer?
You can access the proposals by logging into the portal using your email address and the password that will be shared with you ahead of the review period. Once you log in, click on the Network of Excellence for Disability Inclusion in Higher Education program and then you will find the list of proposals to review.

Q11. If I have any technical issues while reviewing, who should I contact?
For any technical issues, please contact Dr. Mandeep Gabhi, Research and Learning Coordinator, at mcfrlcoord@queensu.ca.

Q12. Can I save my review and return to it later?
Yes. You can save your review and return to it later as long as it is before the review deadline.

Q13. Can I revise my review after submitting it?
Yes. You can revise your review after submitting it as many times as you would like as long as it is before the review deadline.

Q14. Can I complete my review over multiple sessions?
Yes, the reviews can be completed anytime between October 27 - November 8, 2026.

Q15. What is the deadline for submitting my reviews?
The deadline to submit the reviews is November 8, 2026.

For further questions or clarification, please contact Dr. Mandeep Gabhi at mcfrlcoord@queenus.ca.