Academy of Finland review criteria
The Academy 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. The following criteria are used when reviewing 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 or research team in terms of project implementation as well as research training
- quality of research environment and collaborative networks (incl. research mobility)
- project's relevance to the call (in thematic funding) (incl. social impact)
Besides or instead of the aforementioned, the peer-review of organisation-driven funding instruments includes other review criteria. You can find the review criteria for research infrastructures, strengthening university research profiles and flagships on their respective websites.
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.
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
Read more about the how-to guide for international peer reviewers.