GENERAL RESEARCH GRANTS 2010
Funding granted to 32 projects
At its meeting on 14 September 2010, the Academy of Finland’s Research Council for Biosciences and Environment decided to fund 32 projects out of the 190 applications submitted within the January 2010 call for general research grants. The projects were allocated a total of 19.7 million euros (i.e. 92% of the total sum applied for); 17 per cent of the reviewed applications were granted funding. The average amount of funding granted to a project was 620,000 euros. The Academy’s contribution to the total project costs is 70–80 per cent. The projects that were granted funding received a higher rating than 4 (very good proposal). At its meeting on 13 April 2010, the Research Council had decided not to review (and consequently not to fund) three applications. This was because the applicants had already been awarded a research grant for the period concerned in connection with a research post as Academy Research Fellow.
The applicants and the sites of research will be notified of the decisions (funding granted, placed on reserve list, funding not granted) by e-letter. The Research Council has made a reserve list of the most successful projects among those that were not granted funding, in case a researcher who has been awarded a general research grant chooses not to receive the funding. The panel statements on each application are available in the Academy’s online services. The Academy recommends that applicants read them carefully before preparing a new application. The panel statement of some of the applicants includes 2‒3 separate statements and the final ratings due to the exceptional review process in two panels. (See below Funding decisions based on international peer review.)
Competition for funding getting even fiercer
Since 2009, the Academy of Finland has applied the full cost model to its funding decisions, in accordance with the performance agreement with the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. The Academy’s contribution to funding comes to no more than 80 per cent of the total project costs; the projects are joint ventures in which the site of research or some other funding body contributes at least 20 per cent to the project costs. The application of the full cost model has increased the amount of funding applied for and thus further accelerated the competition for funding. The change of Academy Research Fellowships into research posts in 2010 has also depleted the budget authority of the Research Council. Consequently, the number of projects that can be awarded funding has declined since 2009. In 2010, a success rate of about 17 per cent was achieved by reducing the Academy’s funding contribution from 80 per cent for those projects in which the Academy’s contribution to funding was more than 500,000 euros.
Funding decisions based on international peer review
The Academy uses international peer review when reviewing applications for multi-year research grants. The Academy requests a written statement from a scientific expert panel or at least two written statements from persons who are esteemed and experienced researchers in their own field. More information on the review principles is available on the Academy’s website.
The applications submitted within the January 2010 call were reviewed in spring 2010 by seven panels composed of international experts in the field. Due to flight restrictions caused by the volcanic eruption in Iceland, the meetings of two panels at the Academy had to be cancelled, and the review of these applications was arranged in accordance with the Academy’s specific guidelines. The other panel meetings were held following normal procedure. One of the panel meetings was arranged together with the Academy’s Research Council for Culture and Society. The panels comprised a total of 65 experts from 15 countries ‒ the majority of experts came from the UK, Germany and Sweden. The Research Council decided on the appointment of the experts at its meeting on 7 June 2010.
The funding decisions are based on the review of the research plan and the applicant’s scientific merits. The panels felt that even high-level researchers do not always pay enough attention to their research plans. The panels therefore recommended that researchers pay particular attention to how they formulate the questions in their research plans and how they describe the methodology they will be using. It should be made clear which method will be used to find an answer to a specific question. When reviewing consortium applications, the panels had difficulties identifying the added value expected from consortium collaboration. In consortium research plans, researchers shall therefore explain how the consortium collaboration is expected to generate better results than normal project collaboration.
For more information, please contact:
Science Adviser Jaana Lehtimäki, tel. +358 9 7748 8373
Science Adviser Harri Hautala, tel. +358 9 7748 8408
Science Adviser Hannele Lahtinen, tel. +358 9 7748 8409
Science Adviser Kyösti Lempa, tel. +358 9 7748 8248
For more information on the review of applications and the full cost model, please see
www.aka.fi/en-gb/A/For-researchers/Reviewing-applications/
www.aka.fi/en-gb/A/For-researchers/How-to-apply/Full-cost-model/