How applications are reviewed
The Research Council of Finland grants funding based on open competition and international peer review. The reviewers are esteemed international researchers in their fields or otherwise regarded as peers in terms of the applications being reviewed.
As a rule, all applications are peer reviewed by international panels. In concrete terms, the review panels are discipline- or topic-specific meetings of international experts. As a rule, the experts are selected based on the concerned call or the topic of the panel.
At least two reviewers will be asked to review the applications before the panel review. If there is a two-stage review, some applications will be rejected at this stage and will not proceed to the panel stage. In a single-stage review, all applications are panel-reviewed.
Review panels assemble to discuss the applications and the applicants’ scientific merits. They draft a panel review report for each application. Additionally, the panels will rank the applications that have received the best ratings.
Applications that cannot be reviewed by any of the panels are reviewed by at least two independent experts.
Thematic programme calls, such as Academy Programme funding and strategic research funding, are typically two-stage calls. Therefore their review processes may differ from the aforementioned. In thematic programme calls, applications will also be reviewed as regards their suitability for the programme and, in some cases, their societal impact.
Applications for strategic research funding are reviewed in separate panels for societal relevance and impact as well as scientific quality. The members in strategic research panels include both national and international experts in science and societal relevance.
Additionally, the Research Council of Finland offers funding that cannot be applied for annually or that can be applied for by a research organisation. These include Centre Of Excellence funding, Academy Professor funding, funding to strengthen university research profiles, Finnish Flagship funding, research infrastructure funding and international co-funded programmes. In these, the review process is adapted to the objectives of each call.
The review processes for different funding instruments are described in the call text, in the review guidelines or on the funding instrument’s dedicated web page.
In international calls, such as ERA-NET joint calls, the review process may be carried out outside the Research Council of Finland in accordance with the agreement for the international network of research funders.
Review panels and experts
Application review in panels
The Research Council of Finland’s officials organise the application reviews and form the panels based on the call specifications, the panel topics and the applications submitted to the call. In the winter call, Academy Project applicants and Academy Research Fellowship applicants choose the panel for their applications from a set of panels announced in advance.
To ensure a responsible and informed review process, we ask our experts about their possible disqualifications. In the scientific reviews, we ask about their expertise in the themes of the applications to be reviewed.
We ask our reviewers to go through all the applications in the panel, with the exception of the applications that they are disqualified to review. If an expert is disqualified with regard to an application, they do not participate in its review.
We ask at least two panellists to prepare a review for each application before the panel meeting. Based on the ratings in these reviews, applications can be selected to go forward to the actual panel meeting in a two-step review process.
The threshold rating for the panel review may vary depending on the funding scheme. In a single-stage review, all applications will be panel-reviewed. To support the panel’s work and expertise, we may also ask for reviews from experts outside the panel.
The panel meetings are organised primarily as remote meetings. At the meeting, the panellists discuss the applications, prepare review reports based on the discussion and the comments made before the panel, and give the applications panel ratings. Finally, the panel ranks the top-rated applications (excl. applications for strategic research funding).
Research Council officials participate in panel work by helping the panellists. Our officials also make sure that all applicants are treated equally and according to the same criteria.
Panellists are asked for their consent to taking on the assignment in advance, and they will be familiarised with and committed to the Research Council’s principles of responsible evaluation.
Experts participating in reviews
- Reviewer list for September call 2022 (PDF)
- Reviewers for the Special funding for EuroHPC, quantum computing and high-performance computing (PDF)
- Reviewers for Academy of Finland’s Flagship Programme call for 2nd four-year term for Flagships selected in 1st and 2nd Flagship Programme calls (PDF)
- Reviewers for the Critical materials in circular economy of cities call (PDF)
- Reviewers for Academy of Finland’s Finnish Centres of Excellence in Research 2022–2029 (two-stage call) (PDF)
- Reviewers for Academy of Finland’s Finnish Flagship Programme 2020 call (PDF)
- Reviewer list for ICT 2023 calls (PDF)
Review criteria
Our review criteria
The Research Council of Finland’s funding decisions are based on a review of the scientific merits of research plans, action plans, research infrastructure project plans and applicants. We use the following criteria (while also considering the objectives of the funding scheme) when assessing scientific merits:
- scientific quality, innovativeness and novelty value of the research as well as its impact within the scientific community
- feasibility of research plan (incl. responsible science)
- competence of applicant/research team in terms of project implementation, possible researcher training
- quality of research environment and collaboration networks (incl. researcher mobility)
- suitability of the proposed research in terms of the possible special objectives of the funding scheme (incl. societal impact).
The peer-review of organisation-driven funding instruments also includes other review criteria. You can find the review criteria for these instruments on their respective websites (see ‘Programmes and other funding schemes’ on our website).
Review criteria for strategic research
In SRC calls, the proposed projects are reviewed based on their societal relevance and impact as well as their scientific quality. The projects to be funded are selected based on panel review reports, interviews with applicants (if applicable) and the SRC’s aims for the programme concerned. All selections will be made considering the needs of the programme.
The review criteria for strategic research are:
- societal impact of research
- significant societal relevance
- realistic and convincing interaction plan
- required collaboration with the stakeholder network
- interaction merits and competence of the consortium
- scientific quality
- how the research compares with international standards
- plan for strengthening the quality and renewal of research
- scientific merits and competence of the consortium parties
- compatibility of the research with the provided strategic research programme
- ability to answer the posed programme questions
Rating scale
Numerical evaluation: The consistency between the numerical rating and the written comments is particularly important. In the draft review (before the panel meeting) the numerical evaluation is made with a rating scale ranging from 6 (outstanding) to 1 (insufficient). In the final reviews (in the panel meeting) the scale ranges from 6 (outstanding) to 3-1 (fair to insufficient).
|
Draft rating |
Description |
|
6 (outstanding) |
Demonstrates extremely high novelty and/or innovation; has potential to substantially advance science at global level; presents a high-gain plan that may include risks |
|
5 (excellent) |
Is very good in international comparison – contains no significant elements to be improved |
|
4 (good) |
Is in general sound but contains some elements that should be improved |
|
3 (fair) |
Is in general sound but contains important elements that should be improved |
|
2 (poor) |
Contains flaws and is in need of substantial modification or improvement |
|
1 (insufficient) |
Contains severe flaws that are intrinsic to the proposed project or the application |
Review panels for the winter call
The review panels to be used in the winter call will review applications for Academy Project, Academy Research Fellowship and Clinical Researcher funding. The panel structure is established in advance. Panels may also review applications in other funding schemes where appropriate.
