Network grant within the infection area: knowledge gaps within antimicrobial resistance

Please refer to the application form in Prisma in parallel with reading the instructions below, which describe the call-specific content of the application. More information on what to do in practical terms is available in our Guide for applicants Opens in new window..

Language

Foreign experts are involved in the scientific assessment of the applications. To ensure fair and equitable assessment and efficient processing, please therefore complete your application in English.

Sections of the application

The application form includes the following tabs:

• Descriptive information
• Project description
• Budget and research resources
• Publications
• Administrating organisation
• Participants
• CV

The information we request under each tab is described below.

Descriptive information

Abstract

The abstract shall include a brief description of the following:

• What is to be done: purpose and aims
• How the network/collaboration will be carried out: project organisation, time plan and scientific methods
• What is important about the planned network/collaboration

The abstract shall provide a summary picture of the purpose and implementation of the network. Please use wording to ensure persons with another subject specialisation can understand the information.

The description may cover a maximum of 1 500 characters including blank spaces. This is approximately one third of an A4 page in Arial, font size 11, single line spacing.

Popular science description

Describe the purpose of the network in such a way that a person who is not familiar with the subject can understand it. Describe what is to be done, and why. Explain also in what way the network may be important.

The popular science description is an important tool when we inform about the research-related activities funded by the Swedish Research Council. If we approve your application, we reserve the right to use the description for information purposes.

The description may cover a maximum of 4 000 characters including blank spaces. This is approximately one A4 page in Arial, font size 11, single line spacing.

Note: The popular science description must be written in Swedish, unlike the rest of the application.

Project description

Ethical considerations

Describe the ethical issues raised by your project or corresponding. You must also describe how you plan to address ethical dilemmas that may arise. Please justify why the project should be carried out against the background of the ethical issues you have identified. How do your research questions and expected results measure up in relation to the ethical issues? Please also state whether the project involves any handling of personal data, or experiments on animals or human subjects. If no ethical issues are raised, please justify this.

The justification may cover a maximum of 4 000 characters including blank spaces. This is approximately one A4 page in Arial, font size 11, single line spacing.

Sex and gender perspectives

Please state whether sex and gender perspectives are applicable in your planned project, and justify your decision. Please note that we are not asking for information about the composition of the network (men/women). Read more about sex and gender perspectives in research content Opens in new window..

The following applies:

• If you answer “Yes”: Please justify your answer, and describe also how your take account of sex and gender perspectives in the collaboration plan. If you have stated that sex and gender perspectives are applicable, but still choose not to include them in your collaboration plan, you will need to justify this here.
• If you answer “No”, and thereby do not consider that sex and gender perspectives are applicable for your planned project, you do not need to justify your decision.

Collaboration plan

The plan shall cover a maximum of 10 page-numbered A4 pages in Arial, font size 11, single line spacing, including references and any images.

The collaboration plan shall include the following headings and information, listed in the following order:

• Purpose and aims: Describe the purpose and the long-term aim of the research collaboration.
• Network description and mode of cooperation:
  • Describe actual collaboration projects and how these contribute to strengthening ongoing research into antimicrobial resistance and to the implementation of the national research programme’s strategic research agenda.
  • Describe the contributions of the participating parties in relation to the research theme, and how they complement each other.
  • Describe the collaboration structure, that is to say the leadership and role allocation among the participating parties.

• Forms for collaboration: Specify planned activities, such as:
  • coordination of research questions, coordination and joint use of research data or infrastructure, joint seminars, courses or workshops aimed at further developing the joint research basis and the research agenda
  • how senior and junior researchers will be involved in the collaboration
  • joint publications and other joint information dissemination
  • joint conferences.

• Planned results: The planned results of the collaboration shall be clearly specified, for example:
  • The added value of the network collaboration for the research and the research environments.
  • The planned dissemination of results and new knowledge, co-production of publications and other contributions.
  • How the collaboration will continue in operation after the end of the grant period.
• National collaboration
  • Describe how national collaboration will be achieved between different actors working within academia, health and medical care, and/or innovative companies working within the sector in Sweden. The collaboration shall be based on an actual need for interaction, and have a clear long-term purpose. The description of needs and aims shall be linked to the strategic research agenda in the national research programme for antibiotics resistance. Collaboration areas may include coordinating a research question, sharing research data, or using infrastructure that is relevant to research into knowledge gaps within antimicrobial resistance.

Provide the following information also. If a heading is not relevant to your application, please state this under the heading.

• Need for research infrastructure: Specify the project’s need for international and national research infrastructure. In the first instance, you should use the research infrastructures supported by the Swedish Research Council Opens in new window., which are open to all. If you choose to use other infrastructures instead, please justify this need (also applies for local research infrastructure).
• International and national collaboration: Describe your own and the team’s collaboration with foreign and Swedish networks, researchers, and research teams. State whether you contribute to or refer to international collaboration.
• Other applications or grants: If you are applying for or intend to apply for other grants from the Swedish Research Council, please clarify the relationship between the projects. This applies also if you are receiving ongoing grants from the Swedish Research Council with grant periods that wholly or partly overlap with the grant you are now applying for. You should also justify why you are submitting one or several further applications. Describe also the relationship with other applications to or grants from other funding bodies for the same project idea (from you or another researcher).

Classification according to the national research programme’s strategic research agenda.

Please classify the network grant by theme, based on the strategic research agenda Opens in new window. of the National research programme on antibiotic resistance.

Relevance

Describe how your project is relevant for the focus (see the definition under the heading “About the network grant” above) and how the project promotes the development of this field.

The description may cover a maximum of 4 000 characters including blank spaces. This is approximately one A4 page in Arial, font size 11.

Budget and research resources

State the activity level (per cent of a full-time equivalent) of all personnel active within the project, that is to say yourself, other researchers and other personnel.

The grant is a standard amount and you therefore do not need to enter any budget applied for in the application form.

Justification of the budget applied for

Justify briefly the planned cost of the project. The description may cover a maximum of 4 000 characters including blank spaces. This is approximately one A4 page in Arial, font size 11, single line spacing.

Other funding

Please state your or any other researcher’s funding for the project over and above what is applied for in this application. Please state the amounts in Swedish krona, rounded to the nearest 1 000 SEK.

Publications

Applicant’s publication list

Please attach your publication list drawn up according to the headings and information below. The list shall cover a maximum of 5 page-numbered A4 pages in Arial, font size 11, single line spacing and 2.5 cm margins.

Sort the publications under each heading in reverse chronological order, so that the latest publication is at the top of the list. Please only include articles or equivalent that are published or accepted for publication at the time of applying. The author name order shall be identical to that of the published work. The application cannot be supplemented with publications after the deadline for the call.

1. Selection of publications: List the 10 publications of greatest importance to your application. Describe how you contributed to each publication, and its relevance to the research project described (maximum 4 lines per publication). Highlight your name in bold in the author list.

2. Relevant publications from 2012–2020: In this part, the publications listed under Item 1 shall also be included if they have been published during the period in question. Sort the publications, with your name highlighted in bold in the author list, under each heading (publication type) in the following order:

• Peer-reviewed original articles
• Peer-reviewed conference contributions, the results of which are not included in other publications
• Peer-reviewed edited volumes
• Research review articles
• Peer-reviewed books and book chapters
• Other publications including popular science books/presentations

Participating researchers’ publication lists

Attach all participating researchers’ publication lists joined up into one file. The list for each researcher shall include the 10 publications that are the most relevant to the research described, and shall cover a maximum of 1 A4 page in Arial, font size 11, single line spacing and 2.5 cm margins. The name of the researcher in question shall be highlighted in bold and also be included in the page header of each list.

Please only include articles or equivalent that are published or accepted for publication at the time of applying. The author name order shall be identical to that of the published work. The application cannot be supplemented with publications after the deadline for the call.

The publications shall be of the types: Peer-reviewed original articles, conference contributions, edited volumes, research review articles, books and book chapters, and other publications including popular science books/presentations.

Administrating organisation

Please state the administrating organisation and project site.

Participants

Under this tab, you shall invite the participating researchers and any participating administrators to your application.

CV

Under this tab, please upload your relevant CV information from your personal account in Prisma. Participating researchers must upload their own CV information to the application.

The following information (where available) must always be included in each CV:

• Education: First, second and third cycle higher education and specialist degrees.
• Work: Current employment (including employment form) and longer relevant employment held, postdoctoral visits (also included as employment if relevant), research exchanges relevant to the research described and any longer interruptions in the research that have impacted on your opportunity to gain merit as a researcher.
• Merits and awards: Docentship/associate professorship, supervisees (postdoctoral and doctoral students; state the number of persons in each category and list the names of the up to 10 most relevant to you), up to 10 of your most relevant grants awarded in competition, up to 10 of your most relevant prizes and awards, and up to 20 other merits relevant to the application.
• Intellectual property rights: For example, patents and open access computer programs developed by you; state up to 10 of your most relevant.

Scientific quality is the fundamental criterion when the Swedish Research Council allocates grants to research. Your application is evaluated in competition with the other applications on the basis of the following evaluation criteria.

Evaluation process

Your application is evaluated by a review panel where the members are Swedish and international researchers.

At least three members review and grade your application individually. The entire review panel then meets at a review panel meeting to discuss and prioritise the applications, and finally to make a proposal for a decision to the Scientific Council for Medicine and Health.

Review panel Opens in new window.

A certain proportion of the applications with the lowest grades from the members’ individual reviews are screened out in the beginning of the review panel meeting. These applications will not be the subject of discussion, which gives room for more detailed discussion and prioritisation of the applications of higher quality, which have a reasonable chance of being funded.

The applications screened out only receive a overall grade and a standardised final statement after the decision is made. The other applications receive an individual final statement that reflects the review panel’s discussion and overall assessment of the scientific quality of the application.

Evaluation criteria and guiding questions

The evaluation of the scientific quality of your application is made based on four basic criteria (Scientific quality of the proposed research, Novelty and originality, Merits of the applicant, Feasibility). The purpose of using several components is to achieve a multi-faceted evaluation. The criteria are assessed on a seven-grade scale, except for feasibility, which is assessed on a three-grade grade scale.

In addition to the basic criteria, your application is also evaluated using an additional criterion (Relevance to the call) on a three-grade scale.]

For each criterion, there are guiding questions to support the panel members’ evaluation of your application. These can also function as guidance for you when you write your application.

Scientific quality of the proposed research (1–7)

Guiding questions:

• To what extent can the proposed network, based on the included collaborators, strengthen the research area, generate new knowledge, and/or create a stronger impact from research results?
• Can the collaboration lead to transfer of knowledge between applicants, other stakeholders, and society?
• Is the overall description of the collaborative network sufficiently clear, convincing and compelling, for example in the definition of objectives, description of planned activities and impact of the network?
• Does the proposal contain plans for sustaining the collaboration/partnership beyond the proposed duration of network funding?
• Only if applicable: To what extent and how well are aspects concerning gender equality included into the network objectives.

Novelty and originality (1–7)

Guiding questions:

• Does the network combine scientific expertise and capacity in a novel way in relation to the research area and the stakeholders involved?
• To what extent does the proposed network promote the establishment of new researcher-to-researcher and researcher-to-stakeholder relationships?
• Does the network have the potential to extend or challenge current understanding, opinion or practice in its field?
• Does the research network propose a line of activities with clear progression and novelty in relation to previous knowledge in the field or will the formed network simply add details to existing knowledge?
• If principal investigators have collaborated before: Is the proposed collaboration based on a new objective? What were the experiences of that previous collaboration and can additional funding lead to new network activities?

Merits of the applicant (1–7)

Guiding questions:

• Do the network applicants have sufficient research experience, expertise, level of independence and scientific network for the implementation of the proposed collaboration?
• Of what merits are the previous publications and other scientific achievements (e.g. supervisor experience, external funding) in relation to stage of career and active time for research: do these show a distinct and independent line of research or in case of a researcher in his/her early career stage, the potential of such? Focus is on the most relevant and important reports, with emphasis on quality rather than quantity.
• How significant are the academic achievements, the impact and other qualifications of the applicants from a national and international perspective seen in relation to the research area and the applicant´s career age?
• Is the team´s collective competence/representation of relevant expertise in relation to the proposed network objectives?
• To what extent have the network integrated the participation of young scientists and do they bring in any unique qualifications and competence to the network?

Feasibility (1–3)

Guiding questions:

• Is the proposed plan in general, including time schedule, optimal for starting up and implementing the proposed network?
• Is the timeline and related activities of the network realistic?
• Does the proposed collaboration network include the availability and accessibility of relevant personnel, skills, equipment, facilities/infrastructures and other necessary resources?
• Is the environment suitable for carrying out the proposed network activities?
• Are the proposed methods and activities appropriate?

Overall grade (1–7)

The above subsidiary criteria are weighed together into an overall grade, which reflects the review panel’s joint evaluation of the application’s scientific quality.

Relevance for the call (1-3)

Relevance to the program objectives is evaluated separately from the scientific quality, and is not included in the overall grade. Network grants are financed by funds from the National research programme on antibiotic resistance, and research receiving support must be of relevance to reduction or prevention of the spread of antimicrobial resistance.

Guiding questions:

• To what extent is the proposal relevant to the described call objectives?
• Does the proposed collaboration network have the potential to contribute to the objectives of the National Research Programme on Antibiotic Resistance Strategic Research Agenda?