FAQs for Reviewers
The decision on whether to fund a research project is based on the principle of competition, centred around an expert review of the proposals submitted to the 快三砍龙. The decision-making procedure involves a separation of review, evaluation and decision.
Every year, the 快三砍龙 consults some 17,000 reviewers from Germany and other countries. Selected by the 快三砍龙 Head Office based on their specialist expertise, they assess the proposals on a voluntary basis according to scientific excellence, relevance and originality. The 快三砍龙 has consolidated聽information for reviewer(interner Link).
The person responsible for the subject at the 快三砍龙 Head Office selects suitable and competent reviewers for the proposal who have the necessary overarching familiarity with current research in the respective field.听Special care must be taken to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interes(interner Link) that can arise in connection with close scientific cooperation, competitive relationships, teacher/student relationships or mutual review processes.
Reviewers are selected by the 快三砍龙's programme officers responsible based on their subject-specific expertise and taking into account thematic, theoretical and methodological aspects. The 快三砍龙's programme officers possess subject-related expertise in the area they are responsible for, usually a doctorate in the discipline. If a proposal involves multiple disciplines or an interdisciplinary approach, the relevant research areas at the 快三砍龙 Head Office coordinate with each other.
When selecting reviewers, the 快三砍龙's programme officers do not rely on a static pool of individuals but look for suitable reviewers within the relevant subject community, both nationally and internationally, for each new proposal received.听
罢丑别听快三砍龙 Guidelines for Avoiding Conflicts of Interes(interner Link) contain a list of circumstances that may give rise to the appearance of a conflict of interest. In all funding programmes and at every stage of the processing of a proposal, the 快三砍龙 Head Office checks whether a potential conflict of interest exists in relation to individuals involved. There are certain clear-cut instances which exclude a person as a reviewer, e.g. close scientific cooperation, teacher/student relationships and first-degree relatives.听
The 快三砍龙 is not able to verify all circumstances that may give rise to the appearance of a conflict of interest, so it is always dependent on the assistance of all those involved.听
When they are requested to provide a review, reviewers are explicitly informed of the 快三砍龙鈥檚 conflict of interest criteria; when they submit their review they must confirm there is no conflict of interest. Anyone who does not disclose a possible conflict of interest is in breach of good research practice, which may result in proceedings being initiated against them due to scientific misconduct.
In order to be able to check and avoid potential conflicts of interest at the reviewer selection stage, the relevant information is requested in the respective proposal (e.g. current cooperation partners).
Care is also taken to ensure that there is no appearance of a conflict of interest on the part of employees at the 快三砍龙 Head Office. For example, for at least the first three years after moving from a research institution to the 快三砍龙, Head Office staff are not permitted to process individual proposals submitted by their former colleagues or supervisors and, in particular, they are not permitted to select reviewers for such proposals.
As a general rule, two independent reviews are obtained for written proposals. In order to avoid overburdening reviewers, an additional review is only obtained in justified cases. In the case of proposals which are highly interdisciplinary in nature or involve significant financial resources, and/or the prestigious Reinhart Koselleck projects, the decision may be made to obtain three reviews by default. By way of an exception, a single detailed external review is sufficient in the case of proposals totalling up to 鈧�200,000.
In the case of so-called coordinated programmes, proposals are reviewed by panels. See also聽The decision-making process under coordinated programme(interner Link).
After the review stage, the reviews and the proposal itself are submitted to a review boar(interner Link). Review board members are researchers who have been elected by the communities. The review boards are responsible for undertaking a comparative evaluation of all proposals submitted in 鈥渢heir鈥� subject areas and for ensuring the quality of the reviews submitted. The review board considers the reviewers鈥� comments and the relevance of their arguments. Bearing in mind the financial possibilities, the review boards prioritise the proposals and draw up a funding or rejection recommendation for each one. This comparative evaluation and the need to keep within the budget may mean that the recommendations made by review boards differ from the votes put forward by the reviewers.
The reviews are seen by the聽review boar(interner Link) and the decision-making body. After the final decision has been made, applicants receive the reviews in anonymised form via the elan portal. The reviewers also receive the other reviews in anonymised form for information purposes. Nobody else gets to see or request the reviews.
Reviewers assess a proposal based on the following general criteria, which you will find in the聽General Guidelines for Review(interner Link):
- Quality of the project
- Objectives and work programme
- Applicants鈥� qualifications
- Work and research environment
In the case of coordinated programmes, the quality and added value of the cooperation is also taken into consideration.
For some programmes there are special 鈥淕uidelines for the Review鈥�: these can be found among the relevant forms and guideline(interner Link).
Anyone who forwards documents of their own accord without the consent of the 快三砍龙 Head Office is in breach of confidentiality and good research practice. This may result in proceedings being initiated against them due to scientific misconduct.
The involvement of another person can be a useful exercise in order to expand one鈥檚 own subject-specific expertise and/or to introduce somebody else to the review process at an early stage of their career.
However, such a step is only possible with the prior written consent of the 快三砍龙 Head Office subject to the following conditions:
- The review must not simply be delegated.
- The other person must have subject-specific qualifications and there must be no appearance of a conflict of interest.
- The 快三砍龙 Head Office forwards the proposal documents to the third party and records them in the database as a person providing the review.听
- The primary reviewer who was originally requested retains responsibility for the content of the jointly prepared review.
Exception: If another subject area is to be involved, the process is carried out on an equal footing: in this case, the two subject areas are jointly responsible for the review.
No, the use of generative models in the preparation of reviews is inadmissible in any case due to the confidentiality of the review process. Documents provided for review are confidential; in particular, they may not be used聽
as input for generative models. Anyone who does not comply with this rule is in breach of good research practice. This may result in proceedings being initiated against them due to scientific misconduct.
The principles of good research practic(interner Link) must be observed during the review process, too. If a reviewer violates the principles of confidentiality, for example, this is treated as a case of scientific misconduct.
Every individual is biased in different ways and to differing degrees. This applies in the area of research, too, and to researchers who strive for objectivity and evidence.听
The 快三砍龙 provides its reviewers and committee members with materials to raise awareness of the need to mitigate bias, including a short聽. These materials are also used in specific review situations as required.
Funding proposals submitted to the 快三砍龙 are assessed based on scientifically relevant criteria alone. At the same time, any special and unavoidable personal circumstances pertaining to an applicant are taken into account exclusively in their favour (e.g. periods of childcare or periods of absence due to health), if details of such circumstances are supplied voluntarily.
In addition to scientific funding criteria, equity and diversit(interner Link) in research are also relevant to the review in the 快三砍龙鈥檚 coordinated programmes.