Applications for research grants are assessed by review panels composed of expert researchers. They assess the scientific quality of the application using four basic criteria:
- Scientific quality of the proposed research
- Novelty and originality
- Merits of the applicant(s)
- Feasibility
Based on the assessment of these four criteria, the review panel then gives the application an overall grade.
The first three criteria and the overall grade are assessed on a seven-point grading scale. The criterion of feasibility is assessed on a three-point grading scale (see further information below on our grading scales).
Assessment criteria for assessment of the needs inventory
- Scientific relevance (text only)
- Strategic and national relevance (text only)
- Other aspects important to consider? (text only)
- Overall assessment (grade A-X and text)
The assessment of the first three criteria is only described in text, while the overall assessment is made on the below grading scale.
In the assessment, the advisory groups place the needs proposal in one of six categories indicating varying degrees of priority (A1 – X).
Grading scale
A1: The described need could be fulfilled by an infrastructure of national interest and the thematic area is considered ready for call (new needs). / The infrastructure is still considered an infrastructure of national interest and suggested to be included in coming call (existing infrastructures).
A2: The described need could be fulfilled by an infrastructure of national interest within VR’s remit, but is at the moment not prioritised by VR. (Only used by RFI)
A3: The described need could be fulfilled by an infrastructure of national interest but the thematic area is not considered ready for call. (Less relevant grade for existing infrastructures)
B: The described need could not be fulfilled by an infrastructure of national interest. (Less relevant grade for existing infrastructures.)
C: Not relevant to be prioritised by VR, because need can be handled within existing national or international infrastructure or should be funded/handled by another organisation or in a different way.
X: Need cannot be assessed due to incomplete information or unclear description.
Assessment criteria for applications for grants for research infrastructure of national interest
The quality of the application is assessed using the following criteria:
- National interest
- Scientific impact
- Implementation, leadership and organisation
- Budget
- Consortium
- Ethical considerations
- Socio-economic impact
- Data management and supporting e-infrastructure
Infrastructures with an ongoing grant from the Swedish Research Council are also assessed on previous performance.
For each criterium the application is graded (1-3 or 1-7) or given a written assessment. Based on the assessment of these above criteria, the application is given an overall grade.
The Swedish Research Council uses two different grading scales when assessing applications for research grants.
Our seven-grade scale
This grading scale is used for most of the assessment criteria by far when assessing applications for research grants. It is also used for certain criteria when assessing applications for grants to research infrastructure.
7 = Outstanding. Exceptionally strong application with negligible weaknesses
6 = Excellent. Very strong application with negligible weaknesses
5 = Very good to excellent. Very strong application with minor weaknesses
4 = Very good. Strong application with minor weaknesses
3 = Good. Some strengths, but also moderate weaknesses
2 = Weak. A few strengths, but also at least one major weakness or several minor weaknesses
1 = Poor. Very few strengths, and numerous major weaknesses
Our three-point grading scale for assessing applications for research grants
This grading scale is only used when assessing the feasibility criterion:
3 = Feasible
2 = Partly feasible
1 = Not feasible
Our three-grade scale for applications for research infrastructure grants
This three-grade scale is used only for assessing applications for research infrastructure grants based on the criteria Social benefit, E-infrastructure and National interest.
3 = Excellent
2 = Good but with weaknesses
1 = Weak/Insufficient
PublISHED ON
UpDATED ON