instruction for reviewers INTERNATIONAL POSTDOC swedish research council autuMn 2014
INTERNATIONAL POSTDOC AUTUMN 2014 instruction for reviewers swedish research council AUTUMN 2014 Instruction for Reviewers International Postdoc autumn 2014 Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. 1 1. Summary and new features ............................................................................................... 3 1.1 Summary of the evaluation process ............................................................................. 3 1.2 New features for autumn 2014 .................................................................................... 5 2. The International Postdoc grant form ................................................................................. 5 3. Evaluation panels for International Postdoc applications ................................................... 7 3.1 Division of evaluation panels reviewing International Postdoc applications .................. 7 3.2 Guidelines for the composition of the evaluation panels ................................................. 7 3.3 Chairs, members, officers in charge, and meeting dates for evaluation panels ............... 9 3.4 Distribution of roles among evaluation panel chairs, deputy chairs, evaluation panel members, and Swedish Research Council officers .............................................................. 10 4. Time plan for the review process, autumn 2014 ...............................................................12 5. Evaluating International Postdoc applications ...................................................................13 5.1 Guidelines and principles in the review process ............................................................ 13 5.2 Evaluation....................................................................................................................... 13 5.3 Simplified process for applications that will not be considered for ranking at the evaluation panel meeting ...................................................................................................... 14 6. Review and rating .............................................................................................................15 6.1 The Swedish Research Council’s basic assessment criteria for scientific quality and rating scale............................................................................................................................ 15 6.2 Reviews and assessments from individual members of evaluation panels and external reviewers in advance of the evaluation panel meeting ......................................................... 16 6.3 Reviews and assessments during/after the evaluation panel meeting and the joint evaluation of the evaluation panel ........................................................................................ 18 7. User Guide for VR-Review ...............................................................................................20 7.1 What is VR-Review? ...................................................................................................... 20 7.2 Who does what in the review process? .......................................................................... 20 7.3 How do you work in VR-Review? ................................................................................. 21 Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 1 8. Ethics principles: permits, approvals, and good research practice ....................................24 9. General guidelines for review work ...................................................................................24 9.1 Applications which lie between or are overlapping disciplines ..................................... 24 9.2 Researchers early in their career/graduate student recruitment ..................................... 25 9.3 Management of open access for the applications to the Swedish Research Council ..... 25 9.4 Conflicts of interest in the review and decision-making process ................................... 25 9.5 Gender Equality.............................................................................................................. 25 9.6 Basis for the assessment of the application .................................................................... 25 10. Call text for International Postdoc, autumn 2014 ............................................................26 11. Contact information for Swedish Research Council officers ............................................33 APPENDIX 1. Swedish Research Council Instructions Ordinance (2009:975) ......................34 APPENDIX 2. The Swedish Research Council Strategy for Gender Equality .......................35 APPENDIX 3. Conflict of Interest Policy ...............................................................................40 APPENDIX 4. The Swedish Research Council’s basic assessment criteria for scientific quality and the rating scale ..............................................................................................................44 APPENDIX 5. The Swedish Research Council’s auxiliary criterion for assessing scientific quality regarding International Postdoc applications .............................................................48 APPENDIX 6. Travel Routines and Policy for the Swedish Research Council ......................49 Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 2 1. Summary and new features 1.1 Summary of the evaluation process In advance of the evaluation panel meeting A. Composition of evaluation panels The evaluation panels are appointed in February. The decision is made by the Director General of the Swedish Research Council. The chairs and members have one-year mandates with the possibility of extension. B. Deadline for applications The deadline for International Postdoc applications is midnight, 2 September 2014. Appendix S, which serves as the basis for registration, must have arrived no later than 5 September 2014. C. Assignment of applications to evaluation panels During evaluation, the responsibility for the scientific assessment of each application will lie with one of the three subject-specific evaluation panels, VR-hsuPD, VR-mhPD and VRntPD. Following registration, applications are preliminarily placed within the domain that the applicants have suggested to start with, and applications are reviewed for compliance with formal requirements. The Swedish Research Council will assign each application to the correct evaluation panel. The panel chairs are responsible for the definitive placement of applications. Adjustments with other evaluation panels must be made by the chair in cases where a transfer may be relevant. The deadline for transferring applications among evaluation panels is 25 September. After 25 September, the responsibility for an application may not be transferred to another evaluation panel unless there are extraordinary reasons to do so. This means that there will be no so-called parallel treatment of an application between multiple evaluation panels. On the other hand, a chair may request an advisory evaluation from another evaluation panel and this too must be done by 25 September. Such evaluations should be acquired for applications that do not squarely fit within the subject area of the evaluation panel. D. Submission of personal data and registration of any conflicts of interest in VR-Review Applications are made available to reviewers and evaluation panels in the Swedish Research Council’s Web-based review system VR-Review, which can be accessed via the Swedish Research Council website, www.vr.se. A username and a password will be provided by the Swedish Research Council (the officer in charge). Reviewers are to submit their personal data as a basis for their honorarium, to register any conflicts of interest, and issue ratings and proposals for preliminary evaluations/assessment notes/external assessments via VR-Review. It should also be indicated there in what form the reviewer wishes to have the applications (as files on a USB and/or paper copies), along with an address for delivery of the material. Please note that it must be possible to reach the reviewer at the delivery address indicated. Applications can also be read directly, or printed out, via VR-Review. In advance of the Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 3 evaluation panel meetings, all ratings and preliminary evaluations/assessment notes/external assessments will be available via VR-Review. Read more about VR-Review in Chapter 7. Before the chair can distribute the responsibility for assessing applications among members of the evaluation panel, it is important that all members go through all applications in the evaluation panel (done most simply by reading data sheets), review the applicants, and register any conflicts of interest in VR-Review no later than 18 September. E. Assignment of applications per reviewer The responsibility for reviewing each application is to be shared by at least three members of the evaluation panel, one Evaluator (proposer) and two other reviewers per application. The Evaluator bears the primary responsibility and submits, besides a rating, a written justification (preliminary evaluation). The other two reviewers also submit ratings and written assessment notes. If the evaluation panel deems that further assessment of an application is necessary (for example, if the application is not central to the subject area of the evaluation panel or if there is a conflict of interest), further assessment may be undertaken by an external reviewer. F. Dispatch of applications to reviewers Applications will be sent in the form and to the delivery address previously indicated in VRReview (see item D above). G. Submission of preliminary evaluations, assessment notes, or external assessments in VRReview In advance of the evaluation panel meeting, evaluation panel members and external reviewers are to submit ratings, rankings, and written comments regarding applications evaluated by the evaluation panel. The panel must strive to use the entire grading scale (see Chapter 6). Approximately ten days before the meeting, the VR-Review system for submitting data is closed at the same time as it is opened for reading, so that all evaluation panel members can read each other’s and external reviewers’ assessments of all applications, in preparation for discussions at the evaluation panel meeting. During the evaluation panel meeting H. The evaluation panels’ assessments of applications At the evaluation panel meeting, applications are presented and discussed on the basis of their ratings for novelty and originality, the scientific quality of the project, the competence of the applicant, and the feasibility of the project. Furthermore, the auxiliary criterion of Internationalization and the research environment should be graded and commented on in writing, and, like the other criteria set up for the assessment, should be combined in an overall rating that reflects the evaluation panel’s evaluation of the scientific quality of the application, following discussion at the meeting. The panel then issues a rating as well as written comments for all criteria. The panel’s evaluation is an important document for the continuing evaluation and also constitutes the Swedish Research Council’s platform for making a decision in the matter. It is important that the written comments are informative and Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 4 consistent with the ratings. The evaluation is always sent to the applicant when the grant decision has been made. The evaluation panel selects the highest-quality applications that the evaluation panel wishes to fund within the framework of its budget. The evaluation panel also ranks applications outside the framework of the evaluation panel’s budget in a reserve list for proposed grant decisions. After the evaluation panel meeting I. Enter the panel evaluation in VR-Review The Evaluator is responsible for writing the evaluation panel’s final evaluation about applications. After the evaluation panel meeting this evaluation must be entered into VRReview, also by the Evaluator. All evaluations must have been entered into VR-Review no later than one week after the concluded evaluation panel meeting. It is vital that these evaluations are of high quality and are entered within the allotted time. The evaluation panel chair is to review and approve the evaluations in VR-Review, but is not tasked with making extensive emendations. The chair may then also ask the Evaluator to make additions to the evaluation. J. The grant decision On the basis of proposals from the evaluation panels, the Director General of the Swedish Research Council decides which applications are to be approved and rejected, respectively. This will be done on 24 November 2014. 1.2 New features for autumn 2014 Strategy for Gender Equality The Governing Board of the Swedish Research Council has approved a revised strategy for gender equality (see appendix 2 concerning this). Conflict of Interest Policy The Governing Board of the Swedish Research Council has adopted a conflict of interest policy (see appendix 3 concerning this). 2. The International Postdoc grant form The call for applications for the grant form International Postdoc is issued twice per year. The application deadline for 2014 is on 2 September for the spring and in September for the autumn call. The budget for International Postdoc is decided by the Governing Board of the Swedish Research Council. The Director General of the Swedish Research Council decides which applications are to be approved and rejected, respectively. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 5 Grants for International Postdoc may be applied for by researchers who have recently completed their PhDs to pursue research abroad. The applicant must have a Swedish doctoral degree or a degree from the European University Institute (EUI). To be eligible to apply for an international postdoc in the autumn of 2014, the applicant’s doctoral degree must have been completed no earlier than 2012-07-01 and prior to the application deadline for this call. By the date of completed doctoral degree is meant when all requirements for the doctoral degree were satisfied, such as obligatory courses and the public defence and approval of a doctoral dissertation. If the doctoral degree is older it is nevertheless possible to apply if there are special reasons for a time deduction. Acceptable reasons are sickness, parental leave, total-defence service, positions of trust in union organizations and student organizations, and internship (up to 24 months) and further education/residency (up to 24 months) for clinical professions. Please note that we do not accept unemployment, holidays, or other employment as deductible time. The grant period is 18–36 months and may be spent both in Sweden and abroad. At least two thirds of the time must be spent abroad. The research time abroad may be divided into shorter periods. The stay is to be started in the first half of 2015. The application must include, among others, Appendix c6, which must contain information about the administrating organisation in Sweden and a formal invitation from this administrating organisation. Appendix c7 must contain a presentation of the host institution abroad and a formal invitation from this host institution. The presentation must describe the research group’s current research and expertise, the research group’s reasons for hosting the applicant, and the role of the applicant in the research group. Appendix c8 must contain a description of how the research at the host institution abroad relates to the research at the Swedish institution and a justification of the choice of host institution abroad as well as a description of the applicant’s potential to develop her/his competence as a researcher. Employment and grant amount The grant recipient must be employed by a Swedish university or university college. The institution decides about the form of appointment and terms of employment. The applicant does not need to be employed at the time of application. By signing Appendix S the representative of the administrating organisation affirms the organisation’s commitment. The amount of the grant is SEK 1,050,000 per year, SEK 900,000 of which represents salary costs and SEK 150,000 research costs. The grant is a set amount that includes compensation for indirect costs and social insurance contributions (LKP). Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 6 3. Evaluation panels for International Postdoc applications 3.1 Division of evaluation panels reviewing International Postdoc applications VR-hsuPD – Humanities and Social Sciences, Educational Sciences, Gender, and Artistic Research VR-mhPD – Medicine and Health VR-ntPD – Natural and Engineering Sciences 3.2 Guidelines for the composition of the evaluation panels The Director General of the Swedish Research Council appoints the chairs and members of the evaluation panels based on proposals from the Secretaries General of the Swedish Research Council. The following guidelines are applicable for the composition of the evaluation panels: • • • • • • • • The number of evaluation panel members, including the chair, as a guideline, can be 7–15 individuals. The chair is chosen for a term of one year. Normally, the term of office of the evaluation panel chair is for one year and this may be extended up to a maximum of six years (also includes the years when the chair does not actively participate in the evaluation process). A deputy-chair shall be appointed within the evaluation panel by evaluation panel’s chair. The term of office for a member of the evaluation panel is one year, and this may be extended up to a maximum of six years. After six years sitting in an evaluation panel, the chair/deputy chair/member proceeds to a waiting period which ordinarily lasts for three years, after which they can return as a member or as a chair of the evaluation panel. Exceptions to the rules on the mandate period for sitting in the evaluation panel are given in two special cases: 1) Individuals who have been an evaluation panel member for one or two years and then were appointed by the Director-General to be the chair, may sit a full term as chair, i.e. 3 plus 3 years. 2) For individuals who have been a member of the evaluation panel for four or five years and then appointed by the Director-General to be the chair for a three year term of office, the waiting period for returning to take up a position takes effect after that. The time which as a member or chair of an IPD evaluation panel has been a member in or chair of an evaluation panel for any type of form of grant or financing at the Research Council shall not be included in the allowable time one may sit on the IPD evaluation panel before the waiting period is to begin. The evaluation panel shall have a subject-matter and geographical distribution in its composition. If this can not be achieved, the concerned Secretary General must provide the Director General the reasons for this, and inform about the persons who were invited to participate but declined. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 7 • • • • Members of the evaluation panel must have high academic qualifications. Researchers who are working abroad can be appointed as members of an evaluation panel. When appointing an evaluation panel, efforts should be made to attain an equal division between men and women (at least 40 percent of the underrepresented gender). If this can not be achieved, the concerned Secretary General must provide the Director General the reason for this, and inform about the persons of the underrepresented gender who were invited to participate but declined. Vice-Chancellors, Deans and department heads of large institutions should not be appointed as evaluation panel members. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 8 3.3 Chairs, members, officers in charge, and meeting dates for evaluation panels Panel Chairperson Members Administrato r Meeting date VR-hsuPD Dag Lindström, Uppsala University Annette Arlander, University of the Arts Helsinki Drude Dahlerup, Stockholm University Mohammad Fazlhashemi, Uppsala University Mikael Hjerm, Umeå University Erika Jonsson Laukka, Karolinska Institutet Johan Pedersen, University of Copenhagen Björn Petersson, Lund University Stefan Tengblad, University of Skövde Boel Westin, Stockholm University Anette Eriksson 2014-11-11 Marianne Quiding-Järbrink, University of Gothenburg Fredrik Bäckhed, University of Gothenburg Tina Dalianis, Karolinska Institutet Malin Flodström Tullberg, Karolinska Institutet Maria Fällman, Umeå University Amel Gritli-Linde, University of Gothenburg Henrik Jörntell, Lund University Lars Palmqvist University of Gothenburg Johan Sandberg, Karolinska Institutet Nina Glimster 2014-11-12 Elisabeth Rachlew, Royal Institute of Technology Henrik Cederqvist, Stockholm University Anna Delin, Royal Institute of Technology Sandra Di Rocco, Royal Institute of Technology Else-Marie Friis, Swedish Museum of Natural History Per Jenssen, Linköping University Karl Henrik Johansson Royal Institute of Technology Anna Linusson Jonsson, Umeå University Kristina Luthman, University of Gothenburg Ulf Molau, University of Gothenburg Karina Persson, Umeå University Per Persson, Umeå University Anna Rosling, Uppsala University William Salaneck, Linköping University Rickard Sandberg, Karolinska Institutet Sung-Za Ödelycke 2014-11-13 VR-hsuPD VR-hsuPD VR-hsuPD VR-hsuPD VR-hsuPD VR-hsuPD VR-hsuPD VR-hsuPD VR-mhPD VR-mhPD VR-mhPD VR-mhPD VR-mhPD VR-mhPD VR-mhPD VR-mhPD VR-ntPD VR-ntPD VR-ntPD VR-ntPD VR-ntPD VR-ntPD VR-ntPD VR-ntPD VR-ntPD VR-ntPD VR-ntPD VR-ntPD VR-ntPD VR-ntPD Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 9 3.4 Distribution of roles among evaluation panel chairs, deputy chairs, evaluation panel members, and Swedish Research Council officers The evaluation panels have been appointed by the General Director of the Swedish Research Council following proposals from the Secretaries General of the Swedish Research Council. The chair and Swedish Research Council officers jointly maintain Swedish Research Council policy in the evaluation work. The officers play a key role as mediators of the Governing Board’s intentions regarding the review process and for feedback to the Swedish Research Council. These officers do not take part in the assessment work of the evaluation panel. One of the members of the evaluation panel is to be appointed by the chair to serve as deputy chair. The deputy chair leads the evaluation panel meeting if the chair cannot take part, for example if the chair has a conflict of interest. Each evaluation panel is assigned an officer from the Swedish Research Council who is to assist the chair in planning the meeting, to be responsible for administrative matters in the evaluation, and to provide expertise regarding regulations, praxis, and the like. The role of the chair in the evaluation The chair of the evaluation panel has a coordinating role in the evaluation and does not personally assess applications. The chair has the following duties and responsibilities: to lead the evaluation panel’s assessment work to distribute applications among Evaluators and reviewers to determine in consultation with the evaluation panel whether there is a need for external reviewers to approve in consultation with the Swedish Research Council the distribution of the evaluation panel’s applications within the panel to ensure that the Swedish Research Council’s policies, and what is otherwise specified in the relevant handbook for reviewing, are complied with in the evaluation panel’s work and proposals to ensure that the evaluation reaches a joint recommendation for each individual application to ensure that all evaluation panel members have the opportunity to present their viewpoints at the meeting and that these viewpoints will be considered to confirm by signing the record of conflicts of interest that the current Conflict of Interest Policy is being observed during the meeting to read all applications, preliminary evaluations, assessment notes, and any external assessments in advance of the meeting to ensure that the content of evaluations reflects the evaluation panel’s discussion and that the viewpoints of external reviewers have been considered to ensure that evaluations issued by the evaluation group have been reviewed for quality by the time stated for the evaluation panel in VR-Review. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 10 The role of the deputy chair in the review process The deputy chair of an evaluation panel has the following responsibility: - to substitute for the chair of the evaluation panel in situations where the chair cannot participate, for example if the chair has a conflict of interest. The role of members in the review process Members of an evaluation panel have the following responsibilities: - to observe Swedish Research Council policy in their assessment work in accordance with what is stated in the relevant evaluation handbook - to perform their individual assessment work according to the time plan assigned to the evaluation panel in VR-Review, and other instructions from the Swedish Research Council - to submit reviews (preliminary evaluations, assessment notes, evaluations) in accordance with assigned times in VR-Review - to submit reviews (external assessments) in VR-Review that are requested by the other subject-specific evaluation panels, in accordance with times stated in VR-Review - to immediately inform the Swedish Research Council of any unforeseen obstacles to the execution of their assessment work - to attend the meetings of the evaluation panel. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 11 4. Time plan for the review process, autumn 2014 17 February DG decision on the composition of the evaluation panels 1 2 September Deadline for submitting applications (Appendix S: 5 September) 2 8–12 September Registration of applications 1 15–18 September All members report conflicts of interest in VR-Review 3 25 September Last day for the distribution of applications in the evaluation panel and to the reviewers (internal and external) 4 26–30 September Dispatch of Print-on-Demand 1 29 September VR-Review opens for review 1 29 September–2 November Review period 3 2 November VR-hsuPD: Deadline for preliminary evaluations VR-Review 3 2 November VR-mhPD: Deadline for preliminary evaluations in VR-Review 3 2 November VR-ntPD: Deadline for preliminary evaluations in VR-Review 3 3 November Meeting with the evaluation panel’s chair VR-hsuPD 1, 4 4 November Telephone meeting with the evaluation panel’s chair VR-mhPD 1, 4 6 November Telephone meeting with the evaluation panel’s chair VR-ntPD 1, 4 11 November Evaluation panel meeting VR-hsuPD 1, 3 12 November Evaluation panel meeting VR-mhPD 1, 3 13 November Evaluation panel meeting VR-ntPD 1, 3 18 November VR-hsuPD: Deadline for submitting evaluations in VR-Review 3 19 November VR-mhPD: Deadline for submitting evaluations in VR-Review 3 20 November VR-ntPD: Deadline for submitting evaluations in VR-Review 3 24 November DG makes the final decision concerning grants 1 Responsibility: 1 Swedish Research Council office 2 Applicants 3 Evaluation panel 4 Evaluation panel chair Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 12 5. Evaluating International Postdoc applications 5.1 Guidelines and principles in the review process Applications are to be treated confidentially Members of evaluation panels must treat applications confidentially. If anyone asks to see an application, refer him or her to the officer in charge at the Swedish Research Council. If a member involved in evaluation work asks a colleague for advice about an application, this must also be done in strict confidence. At evaluation panel meetings, discussions must be frank, which means that it is vital that nothing is mentioned outside the panel, other than in the form of the final rating and evaluation. Multiple applications from the same researcher Anyone seeking grants for International Postdoc may submit only one International Postdoc application regardless of scientific area, but may however apply for other forms of grants from the Swedish Research Council during the same year. Bibliometry Bibliometric data are not included in applications for International Postdoc grants. 5.2 Evaluation Applications for grants for International Postdoc are evaluated separately from other forms of Swedish Research Council grants. For the Swedish Research Council call for International Postdoc applications, the review of applications for postdoc support must be based on scientific quality (including potential for future scientific activities) with consideration given to gender equality. In selecting among applicants the approval rate between the genders must be in accordance with the Swedish Research Council Strategy for Gender Equality. By approval rate for women and men respectively is meant the proportion of approved applications among all applications submitted from women and men respectively. The proposal submitted for decision must clearly state whether the corresponding approval rates have been achieved. Applications are to be evaluated by three subject-specific evaluation panels, VR-hsuPD, VRmhPD and VR-ntPD. Each application is to be assessed by at least three individuals, one of whom is the Evaluator and the other two reviewers. If the application is not central to the subject area of the evaluation panel, external reviewers may be engaged. The evaluation panel writes evaluations and rates applications. Following proposals from the evaluation panels, the Director General of the Swedish Research Council decides which applications are to be approved and rejected, respectively. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 13 5.3 Simplified process for applications that will not be considered for ranking at the evaluation panel meeting In order to increase the time available for discussion of the applications that are assessed to have a reasonable possibility of being funded, the Swedish Research Council has established a simplified procedure for the assessment of the applications which will not be considered for funding as provided below: The basis for the applications which will not be discussed at the evaluation panel meeting is the list of all of the reviewers’ preliminary evaluations for the meeting stating their opinion, where the average ranking is the basis for sorting the list. The evaluation panel chair goes through the application list, assisted by the administrator in charge, and puts a “line” (i.e. the limit) where the applications below this will not be discussed at the meeting. The individual responsible for the form of the grant can participate in that process. The applications below this line that still must be examined are identified; for example, if the three reviewers’ grading of the applications are very different. A gender equality review is made in order to ensure that the process does not impact women and men differently. A rule of thumb is that about 40 percent of the applications will be discussed in detail at the meeting, but this may vary between evaluation panels. All evaluation panel members will receive a list that is sent out before the meeting with information about which applications are suggested not to be discussed. The Evaluator (proposer), has the responsibility prior to the meeting to recommend an overall rating for the scientific quality of the applications which will not be discussed at the meeting. Only applications with an overall rating of 4 or less may be subject to omission for discussion at the meeting. Any member(not having a conflict of interest) may request that an application be raised for discussion at the meeting. A brief time is set aside on the agenda for discussion regarding the grading of the applications that will not be further discussed at the meeting. A written statement of reasons is not prepared in the case of applications for grants not discussed at the meeting. The written justification in such case takes the form of a standard formulation which describes the screening process and notifies the applicant that the application has not been discussed at the meeting taking into consideration the number of applications and the overall rating. The rating for the basic criteria and any auxiliary criteria need not be included, but the overall rating for the application’s scientific quality must always be included. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 14 6. Review and rating 6.1 The Swedish Research Council’s basic assessment criteria for scientific quality and rating scale DG decision No. 2012-1 The Swedish Research Council has decided that, as of 2012, for assessment of applications, evaluation panels are to use a common rating scale and base their review of scientific quality on four fundamental assessment criteria (basic criteria). A seven-grade scale is to be used for three of the four basic criteria, as well as for an overall assessment of the application. The fourth assessment criterion (feasibility) is to be rated on a three-grade scale. The sub-ratings are to be combined in an overall rating that reflects the evaluation panel’s general evaluation of the scientific quality of the application, following discussion of the application at the evaluation panel meeting. Basic criteria for assessing scientific quality On a seven-grade scale: Novelty and originality Scientific quality of the proposed research Merits of applicant(s) (regarding merits for executing the project in the application; also regarding associated researchers) On a three-grade scale: Feasibility Rating scales OUTSTANDING Exceptionally strong application with negligible weaknesses 7 EXCELLENT Very strong application with negligible weaknesses 6 VERY GOOD TO EXCELLENT Very strong application with minor weaknesses 5 VERY GOOD Strong application with minor weaknesses 4 GOOD Some strengths, but also moderate weaknesses 3 WEAK A few strengths, but also at least one major weakness or several minor weaknesses 2 POOR Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses 1 Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 15 The reviewer is also to choose “Insufficient” if the application lacks information needed to assess its quality. For the criterion Feasibility a three-point scale applies: FEASIBLE PARTLY FEASIBLE NOT FEASIBLE 3 2 1 Here, too, the reviewer is to mark “Insufficient” if the application lacks information needed to assess the criterion. Please note that the above scales are ordinal scales (that is, with undefined “distance” between the values); it is therefore not relevant to provide means. In evaluation of applications, medians are used. Auxiliary criterion and grading scale for assessment of scientific quality regarding International Postdoc applications The Swedish Research Council’s four fundamental assessment criteria (basic criteria) of scientific quality and rating scale are also to be used in the assessment of the scientific quality of applications within the framework of the International Postdoc grant form. For International Postdoc applications the following auxiliary criterion shall also apply: Internationalization and research environment This regards the opportunities for the applicant to develop his/her competence as a researcher at the foreign host institution. The auxiliary criterion is to be rated on a three-point grading scale and commented on in writing. Grading scale for the auxiliary criterion: Weak Appropriate Excellent 1 2 3 The reviewer must also be able to assign the mark of “Insufficient” if information for assessing the auxiliary criterion is lacking. 6.2 Reviews and assessments from individual members of evaluation panels and external reviewers in advance of the evaluation panel meeting Members of the evaluation panel The evaluation panel has uniform responsibility for all applications treated within the panel, and all of them must be assessed on their own merits. No application may be assigned a lower ranking or rating owing to the fact that it does not fall squarely within the subject area of the evaluation panel. Each application is to be reviewed and rated by at least three members of the evaluation panel. One of these members, the Evaluator, submits a full written comment, a preliminary evaluation, as a complement to the rating. Other members of the evaluation panel rating and ranking the application are called reviewers and must also submit a preliminary written evaluation, called assessment notes. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 16 In the reviewers’ preliminary evaluations/assessment notes in advance of the evaluation panel meeting, a rating is to be given regarding their assessment of novelty and originality, scientific quality of the proposed research, competence of the applicant(s), and the feasibility of the project. Furthermore, an assessment is to be made of the opportunities for the applicant to develop his/her competence as a researcher at the foreign host institution. Each reviewer is also to give a preliminary ranking of how the specific application is assessed in comparison with all other applications the reviewer has assessed (for example, 1 (20), 2 (20) and so on). External reviewers The definition of an external reviewer is a person who performs the review of applications in support of an evaluation panel but who is not an appointed member of that panel. An external reviewer may be a member of another evaluation panel or otherwise be outside the Swedish Research Council’s evaluation organization. It is often preferable to select a foreign expert to serve as an external reviewer. External reviewers cost money, both in the form of honorarium and the work time devoted to recruiting and guiding them in the review process. The use of external reviewers should therefore be restrictive. Besides those external reviewers necessitate by conflicts of interest (see below), it is recommended that a maximum of one external reviewer be engaged per ten applications in the panel. As far as possible they are to be asked to review multiple applications in order to establish a basis for comparison. The chair of the evaluation panel, in consultation with the evaluation panel, must identify situations when external review is necessary and propose who is to be engaged. Normally the officer in charge at the Swedish Research Council is to contact the external reviewers proposed. External reviewers must not have a conflict of interest in relation to the applicant to be reviewed. Cases that typically require external reviewers: Conflicts of interest within the evaluation panel – the panel wishes to document that an entirely independent review leads to approximately the same results in the evaluation. The scientific content of the application is such that the aggregate expertise of the evaluation panel is insufficient for a satisfactory review. An external reviewer is mainly to perform the same assessment of applications as the evaluation panel (and issue written comments and ratings). As of 2013, reviewer assessments received by the Swedish Research Council will not be made available upon request. The cardinal principle is that the evaluation panel is fully responsible for the assessment of an application. Any external reviewers engaged do not normally replace the loss of reviewers within the panel (at least three). Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 17 6.3 Reviews and assessments during/after the evaluation panel meeting and the joint evaluation of the evaluation panel For each application, the evaluation panel must submit a final overall rating, as prescribed above, using the Swedish Research Council’s common seven-grade scale. The evaluation panel’s written evaluation During the evaluation panel meeting, the evaluation panel’s evaluation is prepared, the final product of the review process that each application undergoes. The panel’s evaluation is therefore an extremely important document, constituting the public authority’s platform for a decision in the matter, and it is to be sent to the applicant in a later phase. It is essential that the evaluation is consistent with the rating and includes any clarifications that may be needed. Preliminary evaluation entered in VR-Review in advance of the evaluation panel meeting serve as the basis for the final evaluation. The preliminary evaluation is to be modified in accordance with the evaluation panel’s joint evaluation of the application. The Evaluator is normally in charge of entering the panel’s evaluation in VR-Review no later than one week after the conclusion of the evaluation panel meeting. The four basic criteria are seen as reflecting the “quality profile” of an application. They are therefore to serve as an assessment of individual components and not as points mechanically summed up to constitute an overall rating of the scientific quality of the application. Thus the rating must not be a mean or a sum of the individual assessments. The evaluation is to be written in Swedish or in English. The chair of the evaluation panel is to review and approve the evaluations in VR-Review, but is not tasked with making extensive emendations. The evaluation panel should especially ensure that the evaluation comments on the following: - Novelty and originality Use and application of new and existing methods. Does the project have the potential to significantly advance the frontiers of the research field? Does the project contain entirely novel ways and methods to approach scientific issues? Does the project generate or explore new research areas? - Scientific quality of the project Strengths and weaknesses of the project’s research question and methodology, including its potential for future scientific activities. Is the proposed project relevant in terms of its research questions, the proposed solutions, and in relation to frontiers of research in the field? Is the proposed research scientifically meaningful? Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 18 Are the choice of research method and access to equipment and research infrastructure adequate to the orientation of the project? - Merits of the applicant(s) Scientific qualifications and competence in relation to the proposed project. Does the applicant possess sufficient scientific competence in the field the project involves? Looking at the project as a whole, is there potential and scientific competence in place to carry out the research assignment? - Feasibility An assessment of the feasibility of the proposed project. - Internationalization and research environment An assessment of the opportunities for the applicant to develop his/her competence as a researcher at the foreign host institution. General advice and recommendations The evaluation is primarily intended for the applicant and is to help him/her to understand the bases for the evaluation panel’s quality assessment and recommendations. It is therefore important to fairly analyse the applicant’s main strengths and weaknesses. In the evaluation there is seldom any reason to write extensive reports about the applicant or about the research described in the application. It is the content rather than the scope of the text that is important. However, overly succinct descriptions may make it more difficult for the applicant to understand the evaluation panel’s recommendation. Quantifiable data, such as the exact number of publications, as well as bibliometric measures, are to be avoided in the evaluation. No proposal regarding the amount of funding is to be given in the evaluation, nor recommendations to approve or reject an application. If deviations from the general instructions for the application (such as the length of the research programme) have been factored into the assessment of the application, the evaluation may comment on this. The evaluation is issued by the entire evaluation panel and therefore must not refer to the individual reviewer (“I feel…”, “In my opinion...” and the like). No comments are to be included in the evaluation to the effect that an application does not belong in or is not suitable for the evaluation panel or the Swedish Research Council. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 19 7. User Guide for VR-Review Revised March 2013 Thank you for joining the Swedish Research Council’s review organisation. 7.1 What is VR-Review? VR-Review is a web-based tool that contains both a database (electronic archive) and a management system for review work. Proposals for research grants sent in to the Research Council are stored in the database, in the form of PDF files, which can be viewed with the Adobe Acrobat Reader program (www.adobe.se). You can access VR-Review online at http://vrreview.vr.se/ following the link at www.vr.se. A guide to using VR-Review is provided at the end of this document. 7.2 Who does what in the review process? Proposals are distributed among evaluation panels after being sent to the Research Council’s web-based application system, VR-Direct. As a member of an evaluation panel, you then use VR-Review to read the proposals allocated to you. Other material may be sent out, depending on the subject area you work in. If you work as an external reviewer (i.e. are not a member of the evaluation panel), VR-Review works in such a way that only the proposals you have been asked to review are visible on your computer monitor. If, as a member of the evaluation panel, you prefer to read proposals in paper format, you can order them after you have logged in to VR-Review, under the ‘My information’ menu option. All reviewers must register their reviews (in the form of preliminary evaluations, assessment notes and external assessments) in VR-Review. The Evaluator fills in the ‘Preliminary evaluation’ form. The other reviewers in the evaluation panel fill in the ‘Assessment note’ form. External reviewers fill in the ‘External assessment’ form. As a precaution, we recommend that you also save copies of your work on your own computer in, for example, a word-processing program like MS Word. No material contained in VR-Review may be made available to unauthorised persons. The evaluation panel must issue a joint evaluation on every proposal after the evaluation panel meeting. The evaluation is, after decisions have been taken, a public document that may be issued to anyone who requests it. Preliminary evaluations, assessment notes, and external assessments are discarded before decisions have been taken and therefore cannot be made public. When the evaluation panel embarks on its prioritisation, the work is done in VRReview. Finally, the priorities, evaluations and preliminary decisions are registered. These, in turn, serve as a basis for the decisions of the Scientific Council or Committee concerned on which proposals are to be awarded grants. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 20 7.3 How do you work in VR-Review? A. Your computer For the work to proceed as smoothly as possible, the following technical requirements need to be fulfilled. These requirements apply regardless of which platform or operating system you use. Basic requirements: Your computer must be connected to the Internet for you to be able to use VR-Review. You must have a modern web browser, which must be configured to allow JavaScript. You must have software installed that can read PDF files (PDF version 1.4 or later). You must allow http://vrreview.vr.se to use ‘session cookies’. The Swedish Research Council recommends: For PC: The Internet explorer web browser 8 and 9, the Firefox web browser 10-18. For MAC: The Firefox web browser 10-18, the Safari web browser 5-6. The Acrobat Reader program (version 7 or later) for reading PDF files. An Internet connection of at least 128 Kbps, with an ADSL modem. Not using a proxy server (disabling your proxy server, if any) when you are using VRReview. Allowing pop-ups for http://vrreview.vr.se. If you are unsure how to follow the above instructions, please contact the person in charge of computer services at your department or equivalent. Reviewers who use Internet Explorer on Microsoft’s new operating system Windows Vista will notice a message of warning when logging in to VR-Review. The warning should be ignored and is due to the following: The default security settings of VR-Review are based on a domain certificate for all vr.se services (ex. vrreview.vr.se). This is not a problem in other web browsers, but the security setting in Internet Explorer and Windows Vista results in this warning. B. Overview menu headings VR-Review is based on a number of different menu headings which are found in the left-hand margin. Please note that the menus available depend on which access rights you have been assigned for your evaluation panel/s. Some of the menus described below may therefore not be displayed in your case. My information This is where you fill in your personal information, bank account details for remuneration, details for delivery and choice of format for material from the evaluation panel. This must be filled in before you start your assessment. My evaluation panels This is where the evaluation panels in which you participate in one way or another are described. You choose panel by clicking its name in the left-hand menu. Detailed information about the evaluation panel, including members and important dates/deadlines, will be displayed and you will be able to see and read all the proposals that the panel has been Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 21 assigned. This is also where the Notice board/Anslagstavlan is found, where different documents can be uploaded for communication to and/or within the evaluation panel. Administer proposals This is where the proposals within an evaluation panel are assigned to reviewers. Conflicts of interest This is where you indicate to which of the panel’s proposals you have a conflict of interest during the period when the system is open for reporting conflicts of interest. The duration of this period is listed under the menu heading “My evaluation panels”. My proposals to review This is where you find a list of the proposals that you will read and write an assessment for. If you have been assigned to be evaluator of a proposal, this is also where you submit the joint evaluation from the panel after its meeting. Priority This is where preliminary financing and other priorities are indicated. The function is available for the evaluation panel administrators only. All evaluation panels This is where you find all evaluation panels of the Swedish Research Council including their assigned proposals for the current year. Reports This is where evaluation panel members may order reports on proposals and assessments. The reports are sent by e-mail to the email address you have specified. Settings This is where you can change your password to VR-Review. You can also choose to see proposals to the Swedish Research Council from previous years. C. This is the procedure: 1. Go to http://vrreview.vr.se Log in with the username and password given on the first page of this document. The best way to start is by reading the ‘Help’ section in the lefthand menu. 2. Click on ‘My information’ in the left-hand menu. Here, you fill in your personal particulars, account details for any remuneration, and information for any proposals sent to you by post. Then click on the Save key. 3. Under the ‘Settings’ option you can alter the various settings, such as your password. 4. Click on ‘My Evaluation Panels’. A list of the evaluation panels you belong to will come up. When you click one of these panels, you get a list of the panel members and a notice board with joint documents for the panel concerned. On the right-hand side of the web page, you also see the dates relating to the review work. Note that the dates may vary from one evaluation panel to another. Here you will be able to see and read all the proposals that the panel has been assigned, if you are a member of the evaluation panel. 5. Click on ‘Conflict of interest’. A list of all the proposals being dealt with by the evaluation panel is shown. Here, where applicable, you can mark the proposal(s) that Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 22 entail a conflict of interest for you. When you click on ‘>>’ for the proposal concerned, you obtain more information about the proposal and a PDF icon for the actual proposal and its data sheet. In this screen, you should report any conflict of interest by inserting a cross in a box and perhaps adding comments on the conflict of interest concerned. Under the menu option 6. ‘My proposals to review’ is a list of the proposals for which you are either the evaluator or a reviewer. When you click (on the symbol ‘>>’) for the proposal concerned, you find more information about the proposal and a PDF icon that you can click on to view the actual proposal and the data sheet that goes with it. Here, you will also find the form in which you enter your assessment of the proposal. Before a specified date you must: as the evaluator, fill in the ‘Preliminary evaluation’ form as a reviewer, fill in the ‘Assessment note’ form as an external reviewer (not a member of the evaluation panel), fill in the ‘External assessment’ form. Do not hesitate to contact your administrator (see www.vr.se “Call for proposals” for telephone number or e-mail) if you have any questions about the implementation or management of the review process. Thank you for your assistance in reviewing proposals. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 23 8. Ethics principles: permits, approvals, and good research practice The administrative entity1 has the responsibility to ensure that the research project complies with the terms and conditions established by Swedish law. The applicant (project leader) has the responsibility to acquire all necessary approvals for the research that receives a grant from the Swedish Research Council. Research involving animal experiments requires approval from the Ethical Committee on Animal Experiments, in accordance with the Swedish Animal Welfare Act (1988:534). Research concerning humans and biological material from humans, and which falls under the Act on Ethical Review of Research Involving Humans (2003:460), requires review and approval from an ethical review board. Some research may require additional approvals e.g. research involving pharmaceuticals, genetically modified organisms, and ionizing radiation. The Swedish Research Council assumes that the necessary permits and approvals have been obtained for the research covered by a grant application to the Swedish Research Council. Approvals should NOT be sent to the Swedish Research Council. For projects awarded funding from the Swedish Research Council, the project leader and the representative of the administrative entity must confirm, when they accept the terms and conditions of the funding decision, that they take responsibility for acquiring necessary approvals. The Swedish Research Council assumes that research conducted with funding from the Swedish Research Council adheres to good research practice. In the grant application, the applicant must present the ethical issues associated with the research and describe how they will be addressed during the research project. 9. General guidelines for review work Based on a decision by the Governing Board of the Swedish Research Council (protocol No. 1, 2014, Appendix 4) In the evaluation of the applications and prior to decisions about grants, the following general guidelines are applicable. 9.1 Applications which lie between or are overlapping disciplines Each evaluation panel will take full responsibility for ensuring that each and every application receives adequate treatment. This also applies to applications which are located within the purview of another evaluation panel within the Swedish Research Council, and applications in the border with other research funding entity. 1 Administrative entity: A state agency or physical or legal person within whose organisation the research is conducted. Universities or higher education institutions often serve as the administrative entity for research conducted with funding from the Swedish Research Council. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 24 9.2 Researchers early in their career/graduate student recruitment While maintaining high quality standards, the evaluation panels should assign a high priority to initiatives that aim to provide good opportunities for researchers early in their careers. 9.3 Management of open access for the applications to the Swedish Research Council Scholarly and scientific publishing should be assessed independently of the method of publishing. All peer-reviewed conference and journal publications emanating wholly or partly from Swedish Research Council funded research must be published as open access. If the publication occurs in parallel with publishing in open institutional archives, the deposit must be made at the time of publication and be made openly accessible within six months (twelve months upon special permission). Applicants for project financing at the Swedish Research Council may apply for reimbursement of any additional costs associated with publishing via open access pursuant to the terms listed above. 9.4 Conflicts of interest in the review and decision-making process The Swedish Research Council’s Conflict of Interest Policy, decided upon by the Swedish Research Council’s Board on 2001-04-03 and later put into affect by DG 2006-02-21, must be complied with during the evaluation and decision-making process. 9.5 Gender Equality The Swedish Research Council’s gender equality strategy prescribes the same success rate for grants and the same average size of the grants to apply to women and men with regard to the nature of the research and form of the grant. Prior to an evaluation panel determining its proposal for the allocation of the grants, the success rate for the grants in the proposal shall be calculated for women and for men. Gender equality should be used as a special condition for the prioritisation of applications equivalent in terms of quality (or close to equivalent). In these cases, applications from the underrepresented gender are to be given higher priority. 9.6 Basis for the assessment of the application The basis for the assessment of the application in the evaluation panel is the submitted application, with its appendices, etc. as stated in the call for applications. Letters of recommendation or support, or similar letters or documents, received by the Swedish Research Council which are unsolicited in the call are not part of the application. Therefore they should not be assigned any value in the assessment of the application. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 25 10. Call text for International Postdoc, autumn 2014 Instructions for applying Content of the application Evaluation Decisions When and how should the application be submitted? Contact The purpose of this grant is to give researchers who have recently been awarded a doctorate from a Swedish university the opportunity to conduct research abroad. Terms and conditions of the grant Who may apply? Individual researchers with a doctorate from a Swedish university or from the European University Institute (EUI) may apply for an International Postdoc. In order to apply for an International Postdoc, your PhD must have been awarded no earlier than 1 July, 2012, and no later than the closing date for this call. The date your PhD was awarded means the time when all requirements for the PhD were satisfied (for example compulsory courses, oral public defence, and approved doctoral thesis). Even if you were awarded your doctoral degree earlier, you may nevertheless apply if there are approved circumstances for deducting certain periods. If you request a time deduction, you must clearly specify the reasons, dates, and amount of time to be deducted in your CV. Grant period The grant period is 18–36 months and must be started in the first half of 2015. At least two-thirds of the grant time must be spent abroad. However, this time may be divided up into several shorter periods. Costs and grant amount The amount of the grant, which is a standard amount, is SEK 1,050,000 per year, of which SEK 900,000 is salary costs, and SEK 150,000 is meant to cover research costs. Number of grants You may only submit one International Postdoc application regardless of scientific area. Our scientific areas are humanities and social sciences, medicine and health, natural and engineering sciences, educational sciences, and artistic research. Administration The grant will be administered by a Swedish university or Swedish higher education institution, or by another Swedish public sector organisation that fulfils the requirements of the Swedish Research Council for an administrating organisation. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 26 Employer and terms of employment As the recipient of the grant, you must be employed by a Swedish university or higher education institution (which is also the administrating organisation). The institution determines the type and terms of employment. You do not need to be employed at the time of your application. By signing Appendix S, the representative of the administrating organisation confirms the commitment. Read more about guidelines for recruitment of researchers in the European Charter for Researchers on the EU website. Instructions for applying Apply electronically via the Swedish Research Council's application system (VR-Direct) by completing an application form, and including the appendices required. Indicate your name, personal identity number and the appendix designation on each page of the appendices. A signed paper copy of Appendix S must be sent to the Swedish Research Council. You are responsible for ensuring that the application is complete, which means that the application form and appendices have been filled out correctly. The Swedish Research Council will not process incomplete applications. Failure to comply with the instructions will be taken into account in the evaluation. Attach only material that we expressly request. Other material, such as letters of recommendation or off-prints will not be evaluated. We do not allow additional information after the closing date for applications, except for information we expressly request. Font, size and pictures Write the appendices in A4 format, using a 25 mm margin and font Calibri or Arial with a font size of 11. When we print out the application, we use a resolution of 200–300 dpi, and sometimes grey scale, as well. You should therefore adapt your images to this standard. Remember that pdf files must not be password-protected. Content of the application The application, including appendices, should be written in English. The Swedish Research Council uses international reviewers. The application must contain the following: Summary Popular science description (in Swedish) Research programme (Appendix A) CV/Scientific qualifications (Appendix B) Publication list (Appendix C) Administrating organisation in Sweden (Appendix c6) Host institution abroad (Appendix c7) Description and justification (Appendix c8) Signatures (Appendix S) Summary The summary of the research programme should be written in English and contain a brief description of: Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 27 what will be done how the research will be conducted, what scientific methods will be used what is important about the planned research value added by your research being conducted at the selected host institution abroad. The text should provide a brief orientation regarding the purpose and implementation of the research. Write in a style that enables people from other research backgrounds, as well, to easily comprehend the information. Write the summary on the form in the application system. Popular science description The popular science description must be written in Swedish. Describe the project in a popular science style so that even those who are not familiar with the topic can understand. Describe what will be done and why. Explain in what way the new knowledge can be important. The popular science description is an important tool that the Swedish Research Council uses to inform others about the research we finance. If we award funding for your application we have the right to use the description for informational purposes. You should enter the popular science description on the form in the application system. Research programme (Appendix A) Appendix A must present a brief but complete description of the research objective on no more than eight A4 pages, including references. Please note that any pages beyond the number allowed will not be considered in the evaluation. The research programme, as well as other appendices, should be written in English. The research programme must include the following information, under separate headings in this order: Purpose and aims. Present the overall purpose and specific goals of the research project. Survey of the field. Provide a summary of your own research and that of others and previous findings in the research field. Give key references. Project description. Describe theory, methods, timetable, and implementation. Also describe your own experiments and preliminary studies, if any. Significance. Present the significance of the project to the research field. Results. Describe the results you expect of the project. Present the following information, under separate headings, if you deem it relevant to your project: Equipment. Describe the basic equipment for the project that you and the group you will work with have at your disposal. Ethical considerations. Present the ethical issues that the project faces, and describe how they will be addressed in your research. CV/Scientific qualifications (Appendix B) You must submit a CV with a maximum of two A4 pages. List your publications separately in Appendix C. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 28 Specify your CV according to these numbered, specified headings in this order (items that are not relevant to you may be left blank): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Higher education degree(s). State year and subject area. Doctoral degree. State year, discipline/subject area, dissertation title, and supervisor). Current position, period of appointment, and percentage of employment time dedicated to research. Previous positions and periods of appointment (specify type of position). State here if you have previously held a postdoctoral position, and if so, in what subject area and for what employment period. Deductible time. Approved circumstances are illness, parental leave, compulsory service (total defence), positions of trust in trade unions organisations and student organisations, medical residency (up to 24 months), continuing education/specialist training (up to 24 months) for categories of clinically active professionals. Please note that we do not accept unemployment, annual leave or other employment as approved circumstances for deduction of time. Other information of significance to the application. Example – deductible time: Reason Start of period DD-MM-YYYY End of period DD-MM-YYYY Percentage of full-time Total Parental leave 01-03-2007 31-07-2007 100% 5 months Medical residency 01-02-2008 31-03-2009 100% 14 months Parental leave 01-09-2009 30-11-2009 50% 1 month, 15 days Publication list (Appendix C) Attach your list of publications. Categorise the publications under these numbered, specified headings, in the following order: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Peer-reviewed articles Peer-reviewed conference contributions (the results of which are not in other publications) Review articles, book chapters, books Monographs Patents (include date of registration) Open access computer programs or databases that you have developed Popular science articles/presentations Note: Include only articles (or equivalent) that have been published or accepted for publication. Administrating organisation in Sweden (Appendix c6) Appendix c6 should contain information about the administrating organisation in Sweden and an invitation from this administrating organisation. You must submit the information and invitation in a total of no more than two A4 pages. Indicate the date when you intend to begin and end your employment at the Swedish higher education institute. Indicate the contact person at the department in Sweden where you will be employed (first name and surname, telephone number, and e-mail address). Also indicate the postal address, written in Swedish (in the following order: university/institute, department, and address) Attach a formal invitation from the Swedish department that shows that you are welcome to conduct your planned research there. The invitation must contain: a presentation of the relevant research group’s current research and expertise your future role in the research group. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 29 Host institution abroad (Appendix c7) Appendix c7 must contain information about the host institution abroad and an invitation from this host institution. You must submit this information and invitation in a total of no more than two A4 pages. You may submit no more than two A4 pages per invitation, if you are staying at more than one host institution abroad. Indicate the period or periods of your stay at the foreign host institution. Indicate the contact person at the host institution abroad (first name and surname, telephone number, and e-mail address). Also indicate the host institution’s faculty and postal address (in the following order: host university/institute, department, and address). Attach a formal invitation from the foreign host institution that shows that you are welcome to conduct your planned research there. The invitation must contain: a presentation of the host institution a description of the relevant research group’s current research and expertise the research group’s reasons for hosting you your role in the research group. Description and justification (Appendix c8) Appendix c8 must comprise no more than one A4 page. Describe how the research at the host institution abroad relates to the research at your Swedish institution. Justify your choice of host institution abroad and describe your opportunities to develop your skills as a researcher. Signatures (Appendix S) Appendix S is generated automatically when you register your application. Print Appendix S and sign it. It must also be signed by the head of department or equivalent official of the department where the research will be conducted in Sweden. The signatures confirm that: the research described, position, and equipment will be allocated space in the institution you have reported your side-line occupations and commercial ties, and that nothing has arisen that would conflict with good research practice the necessary permits and approvals are in place at the start of the project, for example regarding ethical review. You must discuss the above-mentioned points with the representative of the administrating organisation before he or she approves and signs the application. The administrating organisation is responsible for assuring that the project complies with the terms and conditions established by Swedish legislation. Send Appendix S by regular mail to the Swedish Research Council. Remember! Appendix S, complete with signatures, must be received by the Swedish Research Council no later than three working days after the closing date for applications. You will find the address and closing date for applications in the section, "When and how should the application be submitted?" Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 30 Evaluation Active researchers conduct the scientific evaluation of applications. Using the assessment criteria of the Swedish Research Council, these researchers evaluate your application in competition with other applications. Read more about our assessment criteria The application will also be evaluated based on the following additional criterion: Internationalization and research environment. This concerns the assessment of the opportunities for you as an applicant to develop your skills as a researcher at the host institution abroad. The Swedish Research Council will make the final determination of which evaluation (review) panel will review your application. Evaluation panels for International Postdoc Addressing conflicts of interest at the Swedish Research Council Decisions In mid-December, the Swedish Research Council will publish its grant funding decisions on the website. Notice of decision and the evaluation panel's evaluation will be sent to you as an applicant. The first disbursement of awarded grant will begin in January 2015, provided that we have received a signed approval of our terms and conditions of the grant. When and how should the application be submitted? Submit your application electronically via the application system no later than midnight (24.00) on Tuesday, 2 September 2014. The Swedish Research Council is open until 4 p.m. (16:00) on the closing date for applications. You are responsible for the completeness of your application. Send Appendix S in paper form, complete with signatures, to the address below. This appendix must be received by the Swedish Research Council no later than three working days after the closing date for applications (that is, Friday 5 September). Swedish Research Council Box 1035 101 38 Stockholm Contact Questions about the content of the application can be directed by e-mail to [email protected] , or by telephone to: Anette Eriksson, +46 (0)8-546 44 133 Nina Glimster, +46 (0)8-546 44 215 Sung-Za Ödelycke, +46 (0)8-546 44 307 Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 31 Winnie Birberg, +46 (0)8-546 44 252 Technical questions For technical questions about the application system (VR-Direct), see Questions and answers if you have technical problems when you apply. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 32 11. Contact information for Swedish Research Council officers E-mail addresses have the format: [email protected] Winnie Birberg +46 (0)8-546 44 252 Humanities and Social Sciences, Educational Sciences, Gender, and Artistic Research (VRhsuPD): Anette Eriksson +46(0)8-546 44 133 Medicine and Health (VR-mhPD): Nina Glimster +46 (0)8-546 44 215 Natural and Engineering Sciences (VR-ntPD): Sung-Za Ödelycke +46 (0)8-546 44 307 Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 33 APPENDIX 1. Swedish Research Council Instructions Ordinance (2009:975) The ordinance in Swedish via the Parliament website: http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Lagar/Svenskforfattningssamling/Forordning2009975-med-inst_sfs-2009-975 Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 34 APPENDIX 2. The Swedish Research Council Strategy for Gender Equality Strategy for Gender Equality at the Swedish Research Council Decision by the Governing Board of the Swedish Research Council on 10 April, 2014, protocol No.2, appendix 2. Goals for Achieving Gender Equality at the Swedish Research Council The Swedish Research Council promotes gender equality throughout its sphere of activities in compliance with the council’s Instructions Ordinance. The strategy for achieving this objective is to strive for gender equality throughout the organisation. Hence, the Swedish Research Council has established the following operational objectives. The Swedish Research Council should: 1) achieve and maintain an equal gender distribution in its evaluation panels, 2) ensure that the percentages of female and male applicants for grants from the Swedish Research Council correspond to the percentages of women and men among the potential research grant applicants, 3) ensure that women and men have the same success rates1 and receive the same average grant amount, taking into account the nature of the research and the type of grant,2 4) include a gender equality perspective in each analysis and evaluation, where possible, 5) integrate a gender equality perspective in the council’s external communication. The Board has the responsibility for implementation of the Swedish Research Council’s strategy. Achieving the objectives requires the involvement of the entire agency, including the Scientific Councils and the other councils and committees (SCCCs).3 Unless otherwise specified, the Director General is responsible for advancing the efforts towards achieving gender equality. Introduction This strategy applies to the Swedish Research Council as a research-funding organisation. A special equal opportunities plan addresses the efforts for achieving equality within the Swedish Research Council as a Government agency. The primary objective of the Swedish Research Council is to allocate funding to research of the highest scientific quality and that best promotes renewal. Achieving this objective requires 1 Success rates for women and men refer to the percentage of applications approved among total applications received from women and men respectively. 2 Attainment of the goal must be assessed in the context of a sufficiently large number of decisions. 3 These include the Scientific Council for Humanities and Social Sciences, the Scientific Council for Medicine and Health, the Scientific Council for Natural and Engineering Sciences, the Council for Research Infrastructures, the Educational Sciences Committee, the Committee for Artistic Research, the Committee for Development Research and the Committee for Clinical Treatment Research. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 35 impartial assessment of grant applications. Impartial assessment implies gender neutrality; that the Swedish Research Council supports the best researchers, regardless of gender. The Swedish Research Council assumes that research capacity exists to the same extent in both sexes. Moreover, the Swedish Research Council assumes that research is benefited when both genders participate and apply their expertise and experience. Gender equality is also a matter of justice. Women and men should have equal opportunities to conduct research and develop professional careers as researchers. Achieving gender equality throughout the Swedish Research Council’s sphere of activity requires a persistent, long-term effort and continuous attention to assure that the ground gained towards equality is not lost. The agency must continually monitor and analyse its activities from an equality perspective and take necessary steps based on the results. The Swedish Research Council should also inform others about its actions in gender equality. Moreover, the Swedish Research Council must consider how the results of gender research might contribute towards improving equality throughout the agency’s sphere of activity. Laws, Ordinances, and Appropriation Directions Equality between women and men is addressed by a body of laws and regulations, e.g. the Instrument of Government Chapter 1 Section 2 (part of the Constitution), the Discrimination Act (2008:467), the Higher Education Act (1992:1434), and the Higher Education Ordinance (1993:100). The objective of the governmental gender equality policy is that women and men are to have the same power to shape society and their own lives4. This overall objective has four interim objectives: (i) economic equality, (ii) equal division of power and influence, (iii) equal distribution of unpaid housework and provision of care, (iv) men's violence against women must stop. The operations and gender equality strategy of the Swedish Research Council relate primarily to the first two interim objectives. According to the Swedish Research Council’s Instructions Ordinance (2009:975) 1§ 14, the Swedish Research Council must promote equality between women and men within its sphere of activity. In accordance with the requirements established by its government directive, the goals achieved must be presented in the Annual Report of the Swedish Research Council. Processes for Achieving Objectives The Swedish Research Council must analyse its activities from a gender equality perspective and follow up on the extent to which the goals have been achieved. This should be done annually in conjunction with the presentation to the Board regarding the outcome of the year’s general funding call and in conjunction with producing the Annual Report. Equality issues must be discussed by the Board and by other parts of the organisation, and necessary actions must be taken. Furthermore, a comprehensive analysis of gender equality must be conducted at the end of the Board’s 3-year term of office. When a new Board takes office it must review the gender equality strategy and where necessary decide on changes to the strategy. The following points describe how the operational objectives should be achieved. 4 Makt att forma samhället och sitt eget liv - nya mål i jämställdhetspolitiken (prop. 2005/06:155). Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 36 1. Equal gender distribution in Swedish Research Council evaluation panels “The Swedish Research Council should achieve and maintain an equal gender distribution in its evaluation panels.” (Objective 1) In this context, equal gender distribution is considered to exist in a group when neither of the sexes comprises less than 40% of the panel members. Before appointing the evaluation panels, gender distribution should be considered as a whole and not least relating to the positions of chair. Efforts involving equality should take a longterm perspective. This means, e.g. that in certain areas where women or men are greatly underrepresented among teachers and researchers at higher education institutions, the Swedish Research Council must be observant not to over-utilise those few men or women. If the proposed composition of an evaluation panel and the gender balance of the chairs of these panels across the scientific council, council or committee in concern falls outside of the 40% to 60% range, this must be specified in the decision-making material. This material must also include justification for the deviation and describe the actions taken to achieve an equal gender distribution. Gender equality aspects should also be considered when appointing participants to other groups and when making decisions concerning Swedish Research Council representation on external (national and international) bodies. 2. Grant applications by women and men “The Swedish Research Council should ensure that the percentages of female and male applicants for grants from the Swedish Research Council correspond to the percentages of women and men among the potential research grant applicants.” (Objective 2) Currently, women and men apply for research grants from the Swedish Research Council at rates corresponding to their proportion in the potential pool of research grant applicants. Should this situation change in the future, the Swedish Research Council would actively recruit more applications from the underrepresented gender. 3. Same success rates for women and men “The Swedish Research Council should ensure that women and men have the same success rates5 and receive the same average grant amount, taking into account the nature of the research and the type of grant6.” (Objective 3) Before the Swedish Research Council decides to introduce a new type of grant or to make a new research investment the effects on gender equality must be analysed and consideration be given to whether any special measures are necessary. The analysis should address gender equality at the total level and also be according to the different types of grants and subject areas. The task of the Swedish Research Council to promote gender equality throughout its sphere of activities, and in addition gender equality as a factor for raising quality should be 5 6 See footnote 1. See footnote 2. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 37 emphasized. The texts of funding calls, evaluation criteria and the review process should be considered from an equality perspective. Members of the Scientific Councils and the other councils and committees and the members of evaluation panels must be informed about the gender equality strategy of the Swedish Research Council. The evaluation panels shall be instructed in gender equality issues during the information meetings prior to the evaluation work. Other experts involved must also be informed of the strategy (available in Swedish and English). The Swedish Research Council’s evaluation handbooks must include written instructions for the evaluation panels, giving attention to the following: that all evaluation criteria must be clear and explicit. When the call is issued, the criteria and the instructions for applicants must be published on the Swedish Research Council’s website, that only “active research years” should be considered in evaluating the extent of scientific productivity, i.e. time off for parental leave, sick leave, or similar circumstances should be deducted. Prior to each new round of evaluations, the staff of the Swedish Research Council must discuss the above instructions with the evaluations panels. Before an evaluation panel submits its proposal for allocating research grants, it must calculate the proposed success rates and average size of grants for women and men, respectively. The secretaries general must present the evaluation panels’ grant allocation proposals, from a gender equality perspective, to the respective Scientific Councils and the other councils and committees (SCCCs), commenting on possible gender disparities in success rates and average size of grants. These presentations must be delivered before the SCCCs make their decisions. The respective SCCCs must attach to their decision a collective assessment of the results in relation to the Swedish Research Council’s gender equality strategy. These assessments should include comments by the SCCCs concerning possible disparities, as mentioned above, and a plan/strategy to rectify them. A written consensus opinion from each of the SCCCs must be forwarded to the Board. In conjunction with the Director General’s and the SCCCs’ presentation to the Board regarding the outcome of the annual calls for proposals, the success rates for women and men must be presented for each of the SCCCs and each type of grant. The average grant amounts must also be reported by gender. A summary of the results shall be included in the Annual Report of the Swedish Research Council. Presentations by the SCCCs to the Board must include comments on possible disparities, as regards the matters mentioned above, and a plan to rectify any disparities. 4. Gender equality perspective in analyses and evaluations ”The Swedish Research Council should include a gender equality perspective in each analysis and evaluation, where possible.” (Objective 4) A gender equality perspective should be included in every analysis and evaluation in so far as possible. This should also apply to memoranda, consultations (in response to white papers etc.), discussion and decision-making papers where relevant and possible. Direct and eventual indirect consequences for gender balance should be discussed in each analysis and evaluation. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 38 In those cases where a gender equality perspective has been deemed not possible or relevant a motivation should be given. A gender balance should always be strived for in evaluation panels and where external authors and experts are engaged. A statement of how the research council has fulfilled this objective should be provided annually to the Board. 5. A gender equality perspective in external communications ”The Swedish Research Council should integrate a gender equality perspective in the council’s external communication.” (Objective 5) In the Research Council’s external communications a gender equality perspective shall be integrated in all communication channels, it should also be clear in relevant contexts that the Swedish Research Council works to attain gender equality. The external image conveyed by the Swedish Research Council should be gender-neutral and not reinforce gender stereotypes of, for example, researchers or subject areas. A statement of how the research council has fulfilled this objective should be provided annually to the Board. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 39 APPENDIX 3. Conflict of Interest Policy Conflict of Interest Policy Adopted by the Board of the Swedish Research Council on 10 April, 2014, protocol No. 2, appendix 1. 1. Why does the Swedish Research Council have a Conflict of Interest Policy? The Conflict of Interest Policy is an important tool in safeguarding the principle of objectivity stipulated by constitutional law, which implies that government agencies must maintain objectivity and impartiality, and must consider the equality of all persons before the law. Its purpose is to prevent conflicts of interest for representatives of government agencies in situations where their objectivity could be questioned. The Conflict of Interest Policy is significant not only in terms of the protection of legal rights, but also in terms of public trust in government agencies. The Swedish Research Council differs from many other government agencies in that the majority of the members in its decision-making and reviewing bodies are active researchers chosen by the research community, and are thus directly affected by the agency's allocation of research funds. Moreover, the evaluation of applications comprises a number of intermediate measures that can potentially affect the outcome of decisions, including the control of formal conditions, decisions to disallow applications, the distribution of applications to evaluation panels and reviewers, individual reviews, reviews by evaluation panels, the implementation of decisions and the management of complaints. The Swedish Research Council also conducts assessments, appoints members to external agencies, is involved in strategic planning, responds to proposals, and participates in communication work, among other things. Some of this work is accomplished through peer review, where experts within a certain field of research assess applications from within the same field. In order not to jeopardise legal security or public trust, it is important that all the Swedish Research Council's work is conducted in a manner that not only prevents conflicts of interest, but takes ambiguous and sensitive situations into account. It is the responsibility of the Swedish Research Council and of each individual administrator to adhere to the Conflict of Interest Policy. The term “administrator” herein refers to and includes anyone within the Swedish Research Council organisation who could affect the outcome of a matter. This includes officials, appointed reviewers and elected members. 2. What is conflict of interest? Provisions regarding conflict of interest can be found in the Administrative Procedure Act (1986:223). According to Section 11 of the Administrative Procedure Act - an Act to which the Swedish Research Council is subject as a government agency – it is stipulated that an administrator enters into a conflict of interest if: - the matter in question concerns himself or his spouse, parents, children, brothers or sisters or someone else who is closely related to him, or if he or someone closely related to him can expect extraordinary advantage or detriment from the outcome of the matter, or Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 40 - there is some other special circumstance that is likely to undermine confidence in his impartiality in the matter. 3. The consequences of conflict of interest Section 12 of the Administrative Procedure Act describes the consequences of conflict of interest. It states that: - someone who has a conflict of interest may not handle the matter in question, someone who is aware of a circumstance that could be interpreted as a conflict of interest must disclose it of their own accord, and if an issue regarding conflict of interest has been raised, the government agency must immediately take action and reach a decision. The general rule is that the person who has a conflict of interest may neither undertake any preparatory measures nor participate in the resolution of the matter. It is therefore very important that an administrator, regardless of the grounds for conflict of interest and at every step of the review process, avoids administering any application in which a conflict of interest has been established. In addition, someone who is aware of a circumstance that could be interpreted as a conflict of interest must disclose it of their own accord. If an issue regarding conflict of interest has been raised, the Swedish Research Council must immediately take action and resolve the issue. 4. Situations that may constitute conflict of interest The following situations present a particular risk of conflict of interest and/or can be interpreted as ambiguous in terms of credibility. Individual situations must be assessed on their nature and extent as well as on how long they have been going on. The following situations typically constitute a conflict of interest: - - - when an administrator in a certain matter is simultaneously dependent on an applicant/participant in another matter. An example is if the applicant/participant is responsible for reviewing the administrator's qualifications, grant application, institution or subject area, when an administrator has an ongoing or recently terminated close collaboration with an applicant/participant, such as a teacher-student relationship, or runs a joint research project with an applicant/participant. The relationship between a doctoral student and their supervisor is deemed a conflict of interest regardless of how long ago the collaboration occurred, when there is evident friendship, enmity or difference of opinion, when there is financial dependence, and when there is an manager-employee relationship. The following situations may constitute conflict of interest: - the co-authorship of books or articles. As a guideline, administration should be avoided in the case of research collaboration and co-authorship which occurred in the last 5 years. A joint article or a joint chapter in an edited book is enough to establish co-authorship. Co-authorship that occurred more than five years ago can also constitute conflict of interest. The determining factor will be whether it was the Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 41 - - result of close, professional collaboration or not, and will be judged on a case-by-case basis, when an administrator belongs to the same institution (particularly small and medium-sized ones) or a similar financially independent entity as an applicant/participant, and when the nature of someone's involvement in the matter easily arouses suspicion that the basis for impartial assessment is compromised. 5. Prevention of conflict of interest The following guidelines have been implemented by the Swedish Research Council to prevent situations constituting conflict of interest. - - - - - Administrators in relevant Scientific Councils, committees and evaluation panels should be notified of applications at an early stage, along with a request to report any possible conflicts of interest. When evaluation panels are appointed and when applications are distributed, conflicts of interest should be noted and avoided. In some cases, this can be done by appointing the evaluation panels after the applications have been received or by redistributing an application to another group. Administrators at risk of conflict of interest will not be appointed as the rapporteur of an application. Administrators at risk of conflict of interest will not be present when an application is considered by the evaluation panel. Even in terms of participants, possible conflicts of interest should be heeded as much as possible. “Participants” refers to researchers who play a crucial or central role in the implementation of the proposed research. Administrators who do not intend to apply for grants or participate in an application during the time they work as administrators are recruited as widely as possible. Collective administration of matters, i.e., the simultaneous administration of several matters, for example when a Scientific Council decides on a large number of applications at once according to a list of priorities established by an evaluation panel, attention must be paid to potential conflict of interest to the furthest extent possible. Applications for research funding from members of the Board, of Scientific Councils, councils, committees and evaluation panels are not considered by the group of which the member is Chair, Member or Observer. This applies whether the member is an applicant or a participant. 6. Managing conflict of interest The preceding guidelines cannot completely prevent the occurrence of conflict of interest. Common situations include: - when a Research Council member or Board member applies for a grant, or when an application falls within a highly specialised field where it is not possible to find members for evaluation panels who are not closely connected to the applicant. In these cases, written evaluations must be obtained from at least two external experts. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 42 In cases of conflict of interest, the following measures must be taken when administering a matter: - - The individual who has a conflict of interest must leave the room. This provision remains in effect for the duration of the administration process. Any conflict of interest, i.e., both in cases where it exists and where it has been examined and found not to exist, must be documented throughout the administration process. If the minutes of a meeting are not recorded, a record of conflict of interest must be registered regardless. 7. Communication of the Conflict of Interest Policy Questions and discussions regarding conflict of interest may arise within all of the Swedish Research Council's activities. It is therefore essential that all administrators are wellinformed about the Swedish Research Council's Conflict of Interest Policy. To ensure this: - - - - - all new employees should be informed of the Swedish Research Council's Conflict of Interest Policy and its implications should be discussed as part of their work introduction, administrators involved with application evaluations should be given the opportunity to discuss conflict of interest and current handling procedures before and after application evaluations, in order to raise suggestions for ways to improve the work, the Conflict of Interest Policy should be included in the Instructions for Reviewers, the Conflict of Interest Policy should be communicated to Scientific Councils, councils, committees, the evaluation panel chair and evaluation panel members, handling procedures for grants that are evaluated entirely or partially without coordination by Scientific Councils or committees should include methods for managing conflicts of interest, the appointed official should play a central role in communicating the Conflict of Interest Policy when evaluations are conducted entirely or partially outside of evaluations coordinated by Scientific Councils or committees, it should be made clear during evaluation panel meetings that questions regarding conflict of interest can be raised for discussion at any time, and the Chief Legal Adviser should be responsible, in comprehensive terms, for the Swedish Research Council's management of conflict of interest issues. 8. Validity This Conflict of Interest Policy takes effect on 1 May 2014, and will remain in effect until further notice. It hereby replaces previously adopted Rules for conflict of interest. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 43 APPENDIX 4. The Swedish Research Council’s basic assessment criteria for scientific quality and the rating scale Decision of the Director General No. 2012-1 The Swedish Research Council has decided that in assessments of applications from the start of 2012, the evaluation panels must use a common rating scale based on the scientific quality of four basic assessment criteria (basic criteria). A seven-grade scale is to be used for three of the four basic criteria, as well as for a summary review of the application. The fourth assessment criterion (feasibility) is rated using a three-grade scale. Partial ratings are to be weighted together to give a summary rating that reflects the collected assessment of the scientific quality of the application, after the application has been discussed at the meeting of the evaluation panel. Basic criteria for assessment of scientific quality On a seven-grade scale Novelty and originality Scientific quality of the proposed research Merits of the applicants(s) (refers to competence for the implementation of the proposed project, including co-workers) On a three-grade scale Feasibility Rating scales OUTSTANDING Exceptionally strong applications with negligible weaknesses 7 EXCELLENT Very strong application with negligible weaknesses 6 VERY GOOD TO EXCELLENT Very strong application with minor weaknesses 5 VERY GOOD Strong application with minor weaknesses 4 GOOD Some strengths, but also moderate weaknesses 3 WEAK 2 A few strengths, but also at least one major weakness or several minor weaknesses POOR Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses 1 The reviewer may also choose “Insufficient”, if there is not sufficient information in the application with which to assess quality. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 44 For the criterion Feasibility, a three-grade scale is thus used: FEASIBLE PARTLY FEASIBLE NOT FEASIBLE 3 2 1 In this case as well, the reviewer is to mark “Insufficient” when there is not sufficient information with which to assess the criterion concerned. Please note that the above rating scales are ordinal scales (that is, with an undefined “distance” between the values); it is therefore not relevant to provide a mean value. In the evaluation of the applications, medians are used. Assessment and appraisals by individual evaluation-panel members and external reviewers before the panel meeting Evaluation-panel member The evaluation panel has an equally large responsibility for all applications dealt with in the panel, and all of them must be assessed on the basis of their own merits. No application may be assigned a lower rank or rating on the grounds that it is not central to the panel’s subject area. Every application must be examined and rated by at least three members of the evaluation panel. At least one of these members, the ‘Evaluator’ (proposer), must provide written comments to supplement the rating. A member of the evaluation panel who rates and ranks the application is termed a ‘reviewer’ and can also submit preliminary written comments, which are then known as ‘assessment notes’. In the reviewers’ notes and preliminary evaluations before the evaluation panel’s meeting, rating is carried out for: assessments of novelty and originality, the merits of the applicant(s), the scientific quality of the project and its feasibility. Every reviewer also assigns one preliminary ranking per form of grant and initiative, indicating assessments for specific applications compared with all other applications within the same form of grant that (s)he has examined: for example, 1 (20), 2 (20), etc. In the rating and preliminary ranking, special conditions should not be taken into account. In the body of the preliminary text, detailed comments must be made by the person reporting the case on the novelty and originality, the scientific quality of the proposed research, the merits of the applicant(s) and the feasibility of the project. External reviewer An external reviewer is defined as an individual who reviews grant applications on behalf of an evaluation panel, but who is not an elected member. An external reviewer may be a member of another evaluation panel, or could be outside of the Swedish Research Council’s review organization. It is often advantageous to appoint a foreign specialist as an external reviewer. External reviewers are costly, both in terms of consulting fees and the time used to recruit and support them in the review process. Therefore, external reviewers should be used restrictively. In addition to the external reviewers needed to prevent conflict-of-interest situations (see below), it is recommended that no more than one external reviewer be appointed per ten applications handled by the panel. If possible, they should be asked to review more applications to build a basis for comparison. The evaluation panel, or its chair, can identify situations that require external review and may propose potential reviewers. Normally, the person in charge of the evaluation panel at the Swedish Research Council will contact the proposed external reviewers. External reviewers may not submit grant Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 45 applications of their own to the evaluation panel they serve, and they must have no conflicts of interest with the applicants to be assessed. External review is obligatory when applicants are members of the Swedish Research Council’s decision-making bodies (at least two external evaluations are required as a basis for a decision). Other typical cases that involve external reviewers include: • Conflict-of-interest situations within the evaluation panel – the intent here is to confirm that even a completely independent review would yield approximately the same results. • The scientific content of the application is such that the evaluation panel’s collective knowledge is insufficient for a complete review. An external reviewer should assess grant applications in basically the same way as the evaluation panel does (and submit written comments and grades). Evaluations submitted by reviewers to the Swedish Research Council are public documents equivalent to the panel’s final evaluation and will be released on request. In some cases, it is possible to ask another evaluation panel as a whole to submit an advisory opinion, which would also be handled as an external evaluation. The main principle is that the evaluation panels are fully responsible for the assessment of an application and the recommended decision. External reviewers are not substitutes for reviewers in the panel (at least three). Assessment and appraisals during and after the evaluation panel meeting and the joint evaluation of the evaluation panel For each application, the evaluation panel must set a final, overall rating in accordance with the above, on the seven-grade rating scale of the Swedish Research Council. Special conditions The quality requirement is contained in the first paragraph of the Swedish Research Council’s terms of reference: Quality is thus the primary criterion for prioritisation of applications, but various ‘special conditions’ can be included in the summary priority ranking. These conditions should be used only for determining the priority of applications that are equivalent (or close to equivalent) in terms of quality. No one special condition is more important than any other. The special conditions that should be particularly taken into account are: • Gender equality: the applicant is in an area dominated by researchers of the opposite sex • Mobility: the applicant intends to change environment (department or seat of learning) • Interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary research: the application concerns a project with considerable interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary elements Special conditions of importance to the assessment must be specified in the written comments on the evaluation (in a special box on the form). For applications for the Industrial PhD Student’s Project Grant and for Framework Grants, no ranking is carried out with respect to special conditions. Special conditions cannot affect the rating of applications, only their final ranking. Written comments in the panel evaluation During the evaluation panel’s meeting, the panel’s written evaluation is drawn up. This is the end product of the assessment process that every application undergoes. The panel evaluation is therefore a very important document and serves as the documentation for the Research Council’s decision on the case. It is at a later stage sent to the applicant. It is vital for the evaluation to be consistent with the rating and the proposed decision, and to contain the clarification that may be necessary. The preliminary evaluation that is inserted in VR Review before the evaluation panel’s meeting forms the basis for the final evaluation, and is modified after the evaluation panels’ joint assessment of the application. The Evaluator usually performs the task of inserting the panel evaluation in VR Review not later than one week after the evaluation panel’s meeting is concluded. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 46 The evaluation panel should, in particular, ensure that comments on the following are included in the evaluation (associated with the relevant criterion): Novelty and originality • Does the project have the potential to substantially move the boundaries of the research area? • Does the project contain entirely new ways and methods to approach scientific questions? • Does the project generate or investigate new areas of research? Scientific quality of the proposed research • Is the proposed project relevant with regards to the scientific questions raised and the suggested solutions, and in relation to the boundaries of research in the area? • Is the proposed research of scientific importance? • Are the choice of research method, the access to equipment and the research infrastructure adequate for the orientation of the project (this can alternatively be commented on under “Feasibility”)? Merits of the applicant(s) • Does the applicant have sufficient scientific competence in the area that the application concerns? • How good are the scientific merits of the applicant, seen in relation to career age and earlier period of research activity? Merits refers to the quality of earlier published work, to some extent the amount of earlier published work, citation data, doctoral students that have been supervised, invited lectures, patents, etc. • Considering the project as a whole, and the researchers that are participating in it, is there the competence that is needed to carry out the research assignment? The feasibility must also be commented on if one of the two lowest ratings (“partly feasible” or “not feasible”) is conferred. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 47 APPENDIX 5. The Swedish Research Council’s auxiliary criterion for assessing scientific quality regarding International Postdoc applications Decision FF-2013-436 The Director of the Swedish Research Council’s Division for Research Funding has decided that the Swedish Research Council shall have an auxiliary criterion for assessing scientific quality regarding International Postdoc applications. The Swedish Research Council’s four basic assessment criteria of scientific quality and its rating scale shall also apply to assessment of the scientific quality of applications within the framework for the grant form International Postdoc. The auxiliary criterion, which regards Internationalisation and research environment, is to be graded on a three-point scale and commented on in writing. As with the other criteria set up for the assessment, it is to be factored into an overall rating that reflects the evaluation panel’s joint assessment of the scientific quality of the application, following discussion of the application at the meeting. The decision in Swedish is available here Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 48 APPENDIX 6. Travel Routines and Policy for the Swedish Research Council Plan ahead for your travelling in order to make is as time and cost effective as possible! Appointed travel agency Each individual traveller makes his/her own arrangements. Every portion of a working trip, such as the tickets, hotel room, hire car and other travel arrangements, must be booked with the appointed travel agency, American Express Business Travel: American Express Business Travel Phone +46 243 21 30 50 Fax +46 243 21 30 60 Email [email protected] https://www.aexp.se State customer Swedish Research Council/Vetenskapsrådet, customer number 1612002115. Your reference code is supplied from the administrative support for your evaluation panel, who is also your reference person when ordering your trip, etcetera. SJ Phone +46 (0) 771-75 75 55, touch-tone 1 http://www.sj.se State customer number 937608. Your reference code is supplied from the administrative support for your evaluation panel, who is also your reference person when ordering your trip. Means and mode of transport Mode of transport Each traveller is responsible for choosing the most suitable mode of transport, taking into account the cost, time, safety and environmental considerations. Air and train travel Air travel should normally be in economy class or corresponding. If the traveller opts to take a train instead of flying (for example, for the journey from Stockholm to Gothenburg) in order to cut the cost, the journey may be undertaken in business class instead. Contact the travel agency for consultation in good time before your departure. Private car You may use your own car if it is the cheapest mode of travel. You will be refunded for the number of kilometres driven in the course of your official duties. Tax-free compensation for the distance driven is currently SEK 1.85 per km. Travelling to and from the airport Journeys to and from airports often make up a large proportion of travel costs. Travelling by taxi is generally expensive, but by planning the journey to and from the airport the cost can be considerably reduced. The airport bus or Arlanda Express train should be the primary choice. An airport taxi (‘Flygtaxi’) may be used if you are travelling with heavy luggage. Taxi journeys to and from airports should always be booked at a ‘sharing’ rate to reduce costs. Hotel Accommodation in connection with the evaluation panel meetings is arranged for by the Swedish Research Council according to the information you give upon inquiry. Should you need additional accommodation before or after the meeting, you must give this information at the same time. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 49 Travel claims and reimbursement of expenses A form for expenses related to your travel is found at our web page: http://www.vr.se/inenglish/researchfunding/forms and should always be used for reimbursements from the Swedish Research Council. One trip only should be reported for each travel claim. The travel claim, which must be signed by the traveller, must contain all particulars needed in order to arrange for reimbursement of expenses. Original receipts, vouchers and train- and air tickets (boarding passes) should be enclosed. Amounts in foreign currency should be translated according to the current exchange rate at the time of transaction. Send the travel claim to your panel’s administrative support. A travel claim relating to a particular month should be handed in before the end of the following month. Entitlement to reimbursement under the agreement for a particular month expires if the travel claim has not been submitted within one year after the end of the month of travel. Handbook for Reviewing International Postdoc Applications, Autumn 2014 50
© Copyright 2024