NATURAL AND
ENGINEERING SCIENCES
2016
instruction for reviewers
FOREWORD
The review process for applications submitted to the Swedish Research Council’s Scientific Council for Natural
and Engineering Sciences is now underway. Naturally, each one of us involved is committed to working
towards the best possible final result in allocating research funds. A condition for achieving this goal is access
to good information regarding all aspects of the review process. This review handbook is intended to give you,
as a reviewer, the basic support necessary to carry out your task in the best way.
The review handbook contains instructions and guidelines on the review process and on how to review the
various types of grants offered by the Scientific Council for Natural and Engineering Sciences. It contains
information about the Swedish Research Council’s general guidelines and the policies specific to the Scientific
Council for Natural and Engineering Sciences. In the review handbook you will also find practical information
on how to grade the grant applications, as well as instructions on how to write the preliminary and final
statements. Although the goal of the review process is to allocate the Scientific Council’s funds to the best
science, it is also essential that we produce high-quality reviews in order to provide adequate feedback to the
applicants.
The work of reviewing grant applications is the foundation of the Scientific Council’s activities. Serving as a
member of one of the Scientific Council’s Review Panels is an important commission of trust. My experience is
that it naturally involves a considerable amount of work, but the work is interesting and rewarding since it
offers an overview of a broader area of science than we normally encounter in our daily lives as researchers. I
hope you will appreciate working in the review process. Your assessments will have a profound impact on the
type and quality of the research in natural and engineering sciences being performed in Sweden in the future.
Welcome as a reviewer for the Swedish Research Council!
Lars Kloo
Secretary General
Natural and Engineering Sciences, the Swedish Research Council
CONTENTS
FOREWORD .......................................................................................................................................1
1. NEWS AND IMPORTA NT INFORMA TION 2016 ...............................................................................3
2. PRINCIPLES AND RULES FOR THE REVIEW ..................................................................................5
3. REVIEW AND GRA DING OF APPLICA TIONS ................................................................................. 11
4. TIME TABLE OF THE REVIEW PROCESS 2016 .............................................................................. 22
APPENDIX 1. SWEDISH RESEARCH COUNCIL IN BRIEF ................................................................. 23
APPENDIX 2: CONFLICT OF INTE RES T POLICY ............................................................................... 25
APPENDIX 3. STRA TEGY FOR GENDE R EQUALITY A T THE SWEDISH RESEARCH COUNCIL ........ 29
APPENDIX 4. ETHICS PRINCIPLES: APPROVALS, AND GOOD RESEARCH PRA CTICE ................... 33
APPENDIX 5. GENERA L GUIDELINES .............................................................................................. 34
APPENDIX 6. THE SWEDIS H RESEARCH COUNCIL’S TRAVEL POLICY ........................................... 36
APPENDIX 7. GUIDE LINES FOR NE REV IEW PANELS’ COMP OSITION ............................................ 38
APPENDIX 8. OVERVIEW OF GRANTS THA T CA N BE APPLIED F OR OR ON-GOING IN PARALLEL . 39
APPENDIX 9. REVIEW PANELS AND CONTA CT DE TA ILS ................................................................ 41
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
2
1. NEWS AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION 2016
News and important information directly relevant to the work of the review panels in Natural and Engineering
Sciences in the 2016 review process.
Starting Grant (new 2016)
This call is directed to researchers with a career age between two and seven years. There are no co-applicants in
this type of proposal and therefore only the applicant’s CV and publication list are found in the application. A
support letter from the host department should be submitted with the application. Applicants should dedicate at
least 50 % of a full-time employment to the proposed project. This is a new type of grant that replaces the
earlier Project Grants for Junior Researchers.
Employment at the host institution
For all types of grants, the main applicant must have an employment at the host institution when the grant
period will begin, and this must correspond to at least 20 % of a full-time employment.
Duration of the project
Four years represents the standard and maximum grant period and only exceptional circumstances will qualify
a proposal for a shorter duration than four years.
Grant size
New this year is that the applicant can apply for at most SEK 6 million for a four-year period, i.e. on average
SEK 1.5 million per year. This concerns both Research Project Grants and Starting Grants.
Interdisciplinary applications
In this year’s review process there is a special procedure for handling interdisciplinary applications, where the
research involves more than one subject area. Only applications where the applicants themselves have indicated
that the application is relevant to another subject area will be considered. The review panel chairs will have the
task to nominate a selection of such proposals to the Interdisciplinary panel (Tvärgruppen). For more detailed
information about the review procedure please read section 2.3.
Research Project Grant - Energy-Oriented Basic Research
Since 2015 this call is no longer considered as an appendix to the Project Grant application but a separate call.
In Prisma you will find the applications listed in separate review panels but the applications will be reviewed
together with the applications in Project Grant and Starting Grant. New this year is that only applications with
an overall grade 5 or higher will be forwarded to the Swedish Energy Agency.
Sifting
Since 2014, applications not discussed at the review panel’s meeting shall only include a final overall grade and
a short standard comment which clarifies that the application has been sifted. New this year is that applications
to the call Research Project Grants – Energy-Oriented Basic Research can be sifted if the overall grade is 4 or
less.
Conflict of interest policy
The Scientific Council for Natural and Engineering Sciences has decided on a stricter conflict of interest policy
for review panel members that are co-applicants in an application for Project Research Grants (see Section 2.2
“Rules and Principles”).
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2015
3
Online application and reviewing system (Prisma)
The Prisma system is the online application, reviewing and grant management system used by the Swedish
Research Council. Prisma is still under development, and the Swedish Research Council are continually
working to make improvements. If you have any questions about the system and cannot find the answer in
Prisma’s user manual, kindly contact our personnel at the Swedish Research Council.
This year the applicant and co-applicants submit their CVs through Prisma. Publication lists are still submitted
as pdf:s. However information about intellectual property, such as patents and freely available computer
programs, can now be found in the CV.
No Research Infrastructure Grants 2016
This year there will be no Research Infrastructure Grants to be evaluated by the review panels in Natural and
Engineering Sciences.
No nomination of applications to “Tvär-NT”
From this year there will be no nominations for applications of cross-disciplinary character within Natural and
Engineering Sciences, so called “Tvär-NT”. However, the handling of interdisciplinary applications concerning
more than one subject area to “Tvärgruppen” remains as previous years.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
4
2. PRINCIPLES AND RULES FOR THE REVIEW
2.1 The tasks of the review panel
The primary responsibility of the review panel is to present a recommendation for decisions by the Scientific
Council for Natural and Engineering Sciences (henceforth referred to as the Scientific Council), by assessing
the scientific quality of the review panel’s applications. On this basis, the Scientific Council makes its final
funding decision within existing budgetary constraints. For applications to the call for Project Grants in EnergyOriented Basic Research, the funding decision is made by the Swedish Energy Agency.
In order to fulfil its task, each review panel shall:
 Evaluate and grade the scientific quality of each application that has been placed in the review panel.
 Produce a written review (final statement) for each application
 Produce a list of projects to be financed within the review panel’s budget frame, as well as a ranking
list for reserves.
 Suggest a budget for the projects prioritized by the review panel.
The review panel has the responsibility for all applications evaluated by the panel, and all applications shall be
assessed on their own merits. No application should be given lower ranking or grade on the grounds that it is
not within the primary scientific area of the review panel.
2.2 Rules and principles
Assessment of scientific quality
The preamble of the Swedish Research Council’s charter states that: “The Swedish Research Council (SRC)
shall provide support for basic research of the highest scientific quality in all scientific areas.” This means that
the potential for practical applications and/or societal relevance is not part of the evaluation. The fundamental
principle in evaluating the scientific quality of applications for research grants is peer review, which is
conducted by the different review panels in their respective scientific areas. Within Natural and Engineering
Sciences peer review is allocated to 19 different review panels (see Appendix 9 for more information about the
review panels in Natural and Engineering Sciences).
Another important principle of review is that research funds must be allocated through competition. This also
involves competition amongst research projects from different subject areas. Hence, based on their expert
assessment it is important for the review panels to apply the same quality criteria to all projects, regardless of
the area to which they belong or the individuals involved. This means that the review panels should perform
their assessment of applications without using “quotas” amongst the scientific disciplines represented.
Furthermore, each review must fundamentally address the four basic criteria for assessment of scientific quality
– novelty and originality, scientific quality of the project, merits of the applicant, and feasibility. These four
basic criteria are intended to represent an application’s "quality profile” (see section 3.2).
It is essential that applicants are not disadvantaged if their project borders different review panels. The review
panel has an overall responsibility for all applications placed in the panel. Therefore the review panels should
request an external reviewer when they consider this required in order to fairly evaluate the application. This
also pertains to applications identified as interdisciplinary. Other cases when an external reviewer should be
requested are
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
5



if a conflict-of-interest situation makes it difficult to evaluate the application within the review panel,
or
if the review panel lacks the specific expertise to assess the applications within some area of
specialization, or
if a member of the Scientific Council or the Board of the Swedish Research Council is involved in a
submitted application. Then two external reviewers must always be used.
An external reviewer is defined as an individual, who reviews grant applications on behalf of a review panel (or
other review entity), but who is not an elected member. An external reviewer may be a member of another
review panel, or could be from outside the Swedish Research Council’s review organization. It is often
advantageous to appoint a foreign expert as an external reviewer. In addition to the external reviewers needed
to prevent conflict-of-interest situations, 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 than one
application to build a basis for comparison.
The review panel chair should identify situations that require external review and may propose potential
reviewers. Normally, the Swedish Research Council research officer of the review panel will contact the
proposed external reviewers. External reviewers may not submit grant applications of their own to the review
panel they serve, and they must have no conflicts of interest with the applicants to be assessed.
The main underlying principle is that the review panels are fully responsible for the final assessment of an
application and the recommended decision. External reviewers are not substitutes for reviewers in the panel.
Conflict of interest
A process with peer review means that the review of applications is conducted by researchers who themselves
are part of the community of scientists that may apply for grants. This creates obvious risks for conflict of
interest, particularly regarding special circumstances. In order to avoid conflict of interest situations in the
review process, the Swedish Research Council has established strict internal guidelines (see Appendix 2 for a
detailed description).
All members are obligated to report conflicts of interest in relation to the applications they will review. In
uncertain cases, the review panel chair or the Swedish Research Council personnel should be consulted. In
cases where conflicts of interest exist, another review er will be appointed.
For Project Grants and Starting Grants the members of the review panel, including the review panel chair, may
not be an applicant nor co-applicant of a grant application reviewed by the panel. In such cases, the review
panel member or chair must either resign from this year’s review process, or the application must be reviewed
by another review panel. If a review panel member, including the chair, is the main applicant in an application
in the call “Research Project Grant - Energy-Oriented Basic Research”, they should abstain from this year's
review work or their application must be evaluated in another panel. If a review panel member, including the
chair, is co-applicant in an application in the call Research Project Grant - Energy-Oriented Basic Research,
they should report conflict of interest for all applications in that call. Any application from a close family
member of a reviewer should not be reviewed in the panel where the reviewer is a member.
Regarding other types of conflict of interest, those in conflict must leave the meeting room when the
application is reviewed. Reported conflicts of interests are documented, including cases when a potential
conflict of interest has been discussed in the panel but found not to be present. Open declaration of conflicts of
interest is an important principle. Any conflict of interest applies to the panel meeting as a whole, thus
stipulating that informal discussions regarding applications where such circumstances apply shall not take place
at coffee breaks etc.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
6
Gender equality
The Swedish Research Council aims to promote gender equality throughout its field of activity. The Board has
decided on a strategy for gender equality (see Appendix 3 for details). One of the operational goals of the
gender equality strategy is to “…ensure that women and men have the same success rates and receive the same
average size of grants, taking into account the nature of the research and the type of grant.”
The overall principle for the review panel’s work is that gender shall not cause a bias in the quality assessment
of an application. In the light of this objective, a review panel must, before it finalises its proposal for funding,
calculate the success rate and the average funding amount for women and men. If any differences are found the
panel should discuss the reasons for this, and make adjustments or comment on the outcome. Gender equality
shall be used as a special condition for prioritisation of applications that are of equivalent, or of near equivalent,
quality. In these cases applications from the underrepresented gender should be given higher priority.
Retired researchers who are applying for grants
In order to receive a grant from the Swedish Research Council, the applicant must be employed to at least 20%
of full time at the administrative entity at the start of the project. At some research organisations, there are
regular contracts concerning continued activities after retirement. The head of department vouches with his or
her electronic signature in Prisma that the applicant can carry out the research at the department at the
employment level required.
Applications from foreign guest professors
Foreign guest professors that are applying for grants should be assessed on the same basis as other applicants.
The review panel chair, or a review panel member reviewing the application, can request that the research
officer for the review panel contacts the applicant and asks for additional information, if the time dedicated to
the project and the degree of employment is not clearly stated in the application. This can be done at the latest
two weeks in advance of the review panel’s meeting. All applicants, including foreign guest professors, must
have an employment at the administrative entity when the grant period begins, and the employment must be at
least 20% of full time.
Disclosure of documents
Up until the time that the Scientific Council makes its funding decisions, and until the results are published, all
information about the outcome of the review remains confidential. If anyone requests information about an
application, or how it has been evaluated, they should be referred to the review panel’s research officer (see
Appendix 9 for contact information).
Redistribution
Every year the Scientific Council reserves part of its total budget to distribute amongst competing applications
from different subject areas. Once the regular review panels have met, the redistribution process commences.
For 2016, the redistribution is to be managed by a central redistribution group, composed of the members of the
Scientific Council. A proportion of the budgeted funds of all 19 of the subject-oriented review panels has been
reserved to be subjected to competition, so that applications of the highest quality can be funded, regardless of
the research area. The review panels define a consolidated ranking list of the best applications for Project
Grants and Starting Grants that cannot be funded within their own budget allocation. The review and the
grading given by the review panel provide the supporting documentation for the redistribution group’s
recommendations for funding.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
7
2.3 Applications to be assessed by the regular review panels in
Natural and Engineering Sciences 2016
In the General Call for proposals 2016 in Natural and Engineering Sciences, the following grants are available:
 Research Project Grants
 Starting Grants
 Research Project Grants Energy-Oriented Basic Research
The scientific assessment of the Project Grant and Starting Grant applications is carried out by the regular
review panels, which recommend funding within their own budget allocations. Those applications that are of
high scientific quality but cannot be funded within the panels’ allocation shall be ranked in a special list for the
subsequent redistribution process.
The scientific assessment of the “Research Project Grant- Energy-Oriented Basic Research” applications will
be carried out by the regular review panels following the Swedish Research Council’s assessment criteria. All
applications with an overall grade 5 or higher will be evaluated in a second stage by the Swedish Energy
Agency committee for basic research with respect to the project proposal's relevance to energy. The Swedish
Energy Agency makes the final decision regarding which proposals will be funded within this call. In principle,
the review panels act as consultants to the Swedish Energy Agency, evaluating the scientific quality of the
energy-relevant proposals.
See Chapter 3 for instructions on the review and assessment procedures.
For complete information on the types of grants in 2016 for which calls have been issued, please consult the
complete texts of the calls at www.vr.se.
Research Project Grant
The Research Project Grant (complete text of the call can be found here) aims at allowing researchers the
freedom to identify the research idea, methods and implementation steps in order to solve a specific research
task within a limited period of time. The Swedish Research Council funds basic research of the highest
scientific quality and awards grants in national competition. The grant may be used to cover all kinds of
project-related costs, e.g. salaries, rental and property costs, operating costs (such as consumables, travel costs,
publishing costs and minor equipment) and depreciation costs. Four years represents the standard and
maximum grant period, and only exceptional circumstances will qualify a proposal for shorter duration than
four years. The applicant can apply for at most SEK 6 million for a four-year period, i.e. on average SEK 1,5
million per year. The minimum grant amount is SEK 300 000 per year.
Senior Researchers (rådsforskare) with on-going grants for their employment should normally be granted
Project Research Grants to support their research activities. The Scientific Council has clarified how to treat
applications from this class of applicants:
1. In the first stage, the application from the Senior Researcher will be handled in the same way as all
other applications, without consideration to special conditions.
2. If the application falls outside of the budget allocation of the review panel, but receives the same
weighted final grading as the lowest ranked application within the budget allocation, and it has a
minimum overall grade of 5, the application shall be lifted to fall within the budget allocation at the
expense of the lowest ranked application.
3. If the application receives a lower weighted final grading than the lowest ranked application within the
budget allocation of the panel, and it has a minimum grade of 5, it shall be allocated a one-year grant
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
8
of SEK 400 000, provided that the applicant has not received this kind of grant before. This also entails
the opportunity to submit a new application the following year.
If the applicant will be awarded a one-year grant of SEK 400 000, the main weaknesses of the application must
be clarified in the written final statement. This special treatment shall not be used more than one year for the
same applicant. Relevant information regarding grant decisions of this type from previous years will be
provided to the review panel.
The Swedish Research Council’s special initiative for interdisciplinary projects concerning more than
one subject area
In this year’s review process there is a special procedure for handling of interdisciplinary applications, where
the research involves more than one subject area, where subject area is defined as Natural Sciences and
Engineering, Medicine and Health, Social Sciences and Humanities or Educational Sciences . Only applications
can be considered where the applicants themselves have indicated that the application is relevant to another
subject area, by including a detailed description of the interdisciplinary value of the proposed research.
The review panel chairs will nominate a number of them to the Interdisciplinary panel (‘Tvärgruppen’), which
has representatives from the following disciplines: Natural and Engineering Sciences, Medicine and Health,
Social Sciences and Humanities, and Educational Sciences. The interdisciplinary group’s task is to identify
which of these applications are truly interdisciplinary, and not only interdisciplinary relevant, and, in a later
stage of the process, propose which of these that should be funded by the special funds set aside for
interdisciplinary applications by the Board of the Swedish Research Council. See section 3.5 for the principles
for assigning freed resources.
Starting Grant
The grant (complete text of the call can be found here) is available for researchers with a doctoral degree
awarded between 2009-04-05 and 2014-04-05. Even if the doctoral degree was awarded earlier, an applicant
could be considered if special circumstances interrupted the period of active research such as parental or sick
leave, medical internships or medical residencies (applies to clinically active professionals), positions of trust,
or similar circumstances. Applicants should dedicate at least 50 % of a full-time employment to the proposed
project.
The purpose of the grant is to offer junior researchers the opportunity to become established as independent
researchers. Applicants do not need to have an employment at the host department when submitting the
application, only when the grant period begins. With the application a letter of support from the host
department should be submitted. The letter should state how the applicant’s research profile is in line with the
institution’s activities and future strategies, also regarding teaching merits. It should also include a description
of the applicant’s scientific independence, the career plan and the type of employment, as well as funding of the
employment during the whole grant period.
The grant may be used to cover all kinds of project-related costs, e.g. salaries, rental and property costs,
operating costs (such as consumables, travel costs, publishing costs and minor equipment) and depreciation
costs. The grant period is four years. The applicant can apply for at most SEK 6 million for a four-year period,
i.e. on average SEK 1.5 million per year. The minimum grant amount is SEK 300 000 per year.
The Starting Grants are evaluated separately from the Project Grants (separate lists with rankings shall be
defined during the review of the applications).
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
9
Research Project Grant—Energy-Oriented Basic Research
This research project grant (complete text of the call can be found here) is aimed to enable researchers to
address a defined research objective, within a definite period of time. The applied grant may be used to cover
all kinds of project-related costs, e.g. salaries, rental and property costs, operating costs and depreciation costs.
The grant may however not be used for the following: costs covering activities at foreign Higher Education
Institutions, or costs related to undergraduate education such as supervision of master thesis and scholarships. If
a doctoral student takes part in the project, the grant may not be used to pay for his/her teaching hours. The
grant is awarded for a maximum of four years and the grant amount can be between SEK 300 000 per year and
SEK 1 000 000 per year.
The call is a collaboration between the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Energy Agency, where the
scientific quality is assessed by the review panels of Natural and Engineering Sciences as a scientific quality
assurance for the subsequent relevance review by the Swedish Energy Agency. The Swedish Energy Agency
has allocated approximately SEK 15 million per year to new projects in energy-oriented basic research.
The scientific assessment of the Research Project Grant - Energy-Oriented Basic Research applications is
carried out by the regular review panels following the Swedish Research Council’s assessment criteria. In
Prisma you will find the applications listed in separate review panels but the applications will be reviewed
together with the applications in Project Grant and Starting Grant. All applications with an overall grade of 5 or
higher will be evaluated in a second stage by the Swedish Energy Agency committee for basic research with
respect to the project proposal's relevance to energy. Applications with an overall grade of 4 or less can be
sifted by the review panels.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
10
3. REVIEW AND GRADING OF APPLICATIONS
3.1 Roles and responsibilities
The review panels have been appointed by the Scientific Council. The members of the Scientific Council serve
as observers in the review panels. The review panel chair, the observer and the staff from the Swedish Research
Council jointly uphold the policies of the Scientific Council and the Swedish Research Council in the review
process.
The Secretary General has the overall responsibility for the review process, will answer fundamental
questions, and will handle complaints received after decisions. The task of the review panel chair is to plan
and lead the review panel meeting. It is the responsibility of the chair that the work is conducted according to
the rules and policies of the Swedish Research Council. The vice-chair of the panel will lead the meeting when
the chair has to leave the room due to conflict of interest.
The observer will play an important role in communicating the intentions of the Board and the Scientific
Council relating to the review process, and in providing feedback to the Scientific Council. The observer does
not take part in reviewing applications.
Each review panel is allocated a research officer as well as a senior research officer from the Swedish
Research Council, who will assist the chair in the planning of the meeting, will be responsible for the
administrative management of the review process, and will provide expertise regarding the process, regulations,
practices, etc.
The chair will appoint one member of the review panel to act as rapporteur for each application and a further
two to review the application. The three appointed panel members will grade the application in question and
will write assessments before the review panel meeting. The panel members will also be asked to rank all the
applications they have reviewed. The rapporteur compiles the final review of the application after the review
panel meeting. The final statement will become publically available after the reviewing process has been
completed and will serve as feedback to the applicant. Therefore, quality of the final statement is essential for
the credibility of the reviewing process.
In case of conflict of interest, or if particular expertise is missing in the panel, an external reviewer can be
appointed, and the report(s) of the external reviewer(s) shall be taken into account when the final statement is
authored. An external reviewer is defined as an individual who reviews grant applications on behalf of a review
panel, but who is not an elected member. An external reviewer may be a member of another review panel, or
could be from outside of the Swedish Research Council’s review organization. It is often advantageous to
appoint a foreign specialist as an external reviewer.
3.2 The Swedish Research Council’s basic assessment criteria for
scientific quality and the grading scale
The Swedish Research Council has decided that, from 2012 and onwards, the review panels must use a defined
grading scale based on the scientific quality of four basic assessment criteria (basic criteria) in the assessments
of the applications. A seven-grade scale is to be used for three of the four basic criteria, as well as for the
overall grade for the application. The fourth assessment criterion, Feasibility, is rated using a three-grade scale.
The grades for the basic criteria are to be weighted together to give an overall grade that reflects the collected
assessment of the scientific quality of the application. The scientific quality of the proposed research and the
merits of the applicant(s) should be given the highest weight. It should be noted that the overall grade is not
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
11
obtained by an algorithm. Instead, discussions within the panel will be the basis of formulating the overall
grade of an application.
Basic criteria for assessment of scientific quality
On a seven-grade scale

Novelty and originality / Nytänkande och originalitet

Scientific quality of the proposed research / Projektets vetenskapliga kvalitet

Merits of the applicant/ Sökandes kompetens (refers to competence for the implementation of the
proposed project)
On a three-grade scale

Feasibility / Genomförbarhet
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
12
Seven-grade scale
OUTSTANDING / Enastående
7
Exceptionally strong application with neglible weaknesses/
Exceptionellt stark ansökan med försumbara svagheter
EXCELLENT / Utmärkt
6
Very strong application with negligible weaknesses /
Mycket stark ansökan med försumbara svagheter
VERY GOOD TO EXCELLENT / Mycket bra till utmärkt
5
Very strong application with minor weaknesses /
Mycket stark ansökan med mindre svagheter
VERY GOOD / Mycket bra
4
Strong application with minor weaknesses /
Stark ansökan med mindre svagheter
GOOD / Bra
3
Some strengths, but also moderate weaknesses /
Vissa styrkor men också vissa svagheter
WEAK / Svag
2
A few strengths, but also a few major weaknesses
or several minor weaknesses /
Några styrkor men åtminstone en större svaghet eller ett
flertal mindre svagheter
POOR / Dålig
1
Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses /
Mycket få styrkor och ett flertal större svagheter
The reviewer may also choose “Insufficient” (0), if there is not sufficient information in the application with
which to assess quality.
Three-grade scale
For the criterion Feasibility, a three-grade scale is thus used:
FEASIBLE / Genomförbart
3
PARTLY FEASIBLE / Delvis genomförbart
2
NOT FEASIBLE / Ej genomförbart
1
The reviewer is to mark “Insufficient” (0) when there is not sufficient information with which to assess the
criterion concerned.
Please note that the above grading 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 review of the applications, medians are used.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
13
For each application, the review panel must set a final, overall grade in accordance with the above, as well as
final grades for the four basic criteria described above, using the seven-grade rating scale of the Swedish
Research Council. Exceptions from this are the applications that are not discussed in detail (i.e. the sifted
applications) at the meeting, where only a final overall grade should be given.
As an indication on how the grading scale typically is used, Fig.1 shows the relative distribution of the overall
grade for all applications in the call for proposals 2013-2015.
Distribution of grades 2013-2015
40,0%
35,0%
30,0%
25,0%
20,0%
15,0%
10,0%
5,0%
0,0%
1
2
3
2015
4
2014
5
2013
6
7
Total
Fig.1 Distribution of the overall grade for all applications for Project Grants and Project Grants for Junior Researchers in the
calls for proposals in Natural and Engineering Sciences 2013-2015.
3.3 Special instructions for assessment and grading of
applications in Natural and Engineering Sciences
The various component criteria being used in the assessment should be weighed together to an overall grade
(1—7), which reflects the overall assessment of the scientific quality of the application by the review panel.
The overall grade is formed without a pre-determined numerical weighting of the basic criteria. As a guidance
for the review panel’s assessment the following apply: the scientific quality of the proposed research, and the
merits of the applicant are the two most important criteria. Novelty and originality should also be considered in
the assessment, but should be given lower weight than the quality of the project and the merits of the applicant.
The feasibility shall be weighed into the overall grading of the application if it deviates from the grade
“Feasible”.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
14
Guiding questions when assessing applications in Natural and Engineering
Sciences
Novelty and originality
 Does the proposed project define new, interesting scientific questions?
 Does the proposed project have the potential to substantially increase the knowledge within its
scientific area?
 Does the proposed project use new ways and methods to address important scientific questions?
 When applicable, does the proposed project show a clear progression and novelty in relation to the
previous research of the applicant?
Scientific quality of the proposed research



Is the proposed research scientifically significant?
How does the proposed project relate to the state of the art of the research area?
Do the scientific questions have the purpose to fill in significant knowledge gaps, and is the project
description sufficiently detailed and of sufficient quality to reach, or to in a significant way approach
these objectives?
Especially for Starting Grants:
 Does the applicant show the ability to formulate a scientific question that is clearly independent of the
research the applicant has performed as a doctoral student and postdoc?
Merits of the applicant
The assessment should concern the merits of the applicant to perform the proposed projec t. The assessment of
the co-applicants’ complementary expertise is mainly of relevance for the feasibility of the project.

How significant is the applicant’s scientific productivity, impact and other merits in a national and
international perspective, in relation to the research area, and the applicant’s career age? Here the
emphasis should be put on the recent scientific achievements (including up to the last eight years) .
 What is the applicant’s scientific competence within the research area of the application? The future
potential should also be included in the evaluation when assessing Starting Grant applications .
Especially for Starting Grants:
 Has the applicant shown the ability to work independently?
 Has the applicant shown the ability to work in new (international) research environments, for instance
during postdoctoral work?
Feasibility
 Are the available equipment, infrastructure and other resources adequate for the proposed project?
 Considering the project as a whole, including the participating researchers, does the project group have
sufficient competence to perform the proposed research?
 Only for Starting Grants: Does the host institution’s support letter show that there is a need for the
applicant’s competence and an explicit interest for the suggested research direction in a broader sense?
Does the host institution’s support letter show that the research environment is the right one for the
applicant and for carrying out the research project? Is there a plan for the future employment of the
applicant?
Bibliometrics
Bibliometrics include all statistical analyses of published data, whether expressed in number of publications,
number of publications in journals with high impact factor or citation data. Bibliometric data included in the
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
15
application (publication and citation data) shall be used by the experts of the scientific area as part of a wider
consideration of scientific merits in coherence with the project proposed. Hence, the bibliometric data shall
never be used as the sole basis for an assessment of the applicant's qualifications. Due to the difference in
reliability of the databases between different fields, applicants are allowed to choose between the following
databases:






Web of Science
Google Scholar
Scopus (Elsevier)
SPIRES
ADS (The SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System)
MathSciNet
The applicants are instructed to state which database of the above they have used and to not count self-citations
when calculating the number of citations. However, many databases do not filter out the self-citations for each
publication so the numbers of citations might include self-citations.
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. Special conditions must not affect the grading of applications.
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 or has recently changed environment (department or
host institution)
The review panel should identify which applications can be considered equivalent in terms of quality before
taking special conditions into account. Special conditions should only be taken into consideration for Research
Project Grants and Starting Grants. For other applications no ranking will be carried out with respect to special
conditions.
3.4 The review process
Prior to the review panel meeting
Reporting conflict of interest
One important principle is that the peer review should be impartial, therefore the Swedish Research Council has
a strict conflict of interest policy (see Appendix 2). For example, this means that members of a review panel are
not allowed to submit an application to be reviewed in the same panel. This rule also applies to close family
members of reviewers.
After the Swedish Research Council has received all submitted applications and reviewed them for eligibility,
the members of the panel will receive a message from the research officer that they can start reporting conflict
of interest for all applications in the panel. Conflicts of interest are reported in the online application and
reviewing system Prisma.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
16
All panel members should already from the start note all conflicts of interest in Prisma. If a reviewer later in the
process finds themselves in a conflict of interest regarding a particular application, this should be reported
immediately to the Chair and the research officer in charge allowing a new reviewer to be appointed.
Once all conflicts of interest have been registered the applications will be distributed to the reviewers and
external reviewers.
Distribution of applications to the review panel members and external reviewers
The panel chair is responsible for distributing the applications amongst the reviewers in the review panel and
determining whether any application call for an external review, or if any application should be transferred to
another review panel or another Scientific Council/Committee, and finally identifying which applications
should be sent to the Interdisciplinary panel (‘Tvärgruppen’).
The chair will also determine if any application requires external review due to either conflict of interests in the
panel or due to the review panel lacking the expertise to assess a particular application. For applications where
the chair has a conflict of interest, the vice-chair will take on the task of distributing the applications to
reviewers.
The chair may also identify applications where there is a need for additional information, notifying the research
officer in charge of the review panel. The research officer then has the option to contact the applicant to request
additional information. The chair should pay particular attention to applications from foreign guest professors,
where the extent of the applicant’s planned employment at the Swedish host university needs to be clarified.
The review panel has equal responsibility for all applications that are evaluated by the panel, and all
applications should be assessed on their own merits. No application should receive a lower rank or grade on the
grounds that it is not within the subject area of the review panel. Every application should be reviewed and
graded by at least three members of the review panel. The person who has been appointed “rapporteur” will
receive the preliminary statement form in Prisma, and the other reviewers will receive the assessment notes
form. The rapporteur is the panel member who will be responsible for writing the review panel’s final statement
of the application after the review panel meeting.
Reviewers will get access to their applications in Prisma.
Individual assessments prior to the panel meeting
Prior to the review panel meeting, each panel member shall individually assess and grade the applications they
have been allocated on the following criteria; novelty and originality, scientific quality of the project, merits of
the applicant and feasibility. The grading should be accompanied by a written motivation for each grade stating
the strengths and weaknesses (see section 3.2 and 3.3 for information about the grading scale and the criteria).
Each reviewer shall also rank the allocated applications within the same type of grant, for example 1(20), 2 (20)
etc. No special conditions should be considered when grading and ranking the applications at this stage of the
review process. After finalising the grading and ranking of all assigned applications, each reviewer should
analyse their own distribution and ranking with regard to gender equality before submitting, in order to ensure
that no bias has affected the review.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
17
The picture below summarizes the most important deadlines for you as reviewer, rapporteur and chairman.
The reviewer´s preliminary assessment should be entered into Prisma at least two weeks prior to the review
panel meeting. Based on the reviewers’ individual ranking of the applications the research officer in charge will
compose a list sorted by the value of the reviewers’ ranking. Approximately ten days before the review panel
meeting, the review panel chair, the research officer, the senior research officer and the observer will scrutinize
this list. During this meeting it will be determined which low -ranked applications should be sifted and therefore
not discussed in detail during the review panel meeting. As a rule of thumb approximately 30 % of the
applications can be sifted in this process 1. At this meeting it will also be identified which applications among
these that should anyway be discussed by the review panel, for example due to very different grading by the
three reviewers. A check for gender equality will also be made at this stage in order to ensure that applications
from men and women are treated equally.
Approximately one week before the review panel meeting
The list of applications, grades and ranks, the preliminary statements by all reviewers, and an overview of the
panel members’ usage of the grading scale will be sent to the review panel members. In this information it will
also be highlighted which applications are suggested to become sifted. An important working principle in the
sifting process is that any member of the review panel (provided there is no conflict of interest) can request that
an application suggested to become sifted can be brought up for detailed discussion at the meeting.
Before the review panel meeting, each panel member should read the other panel members’ assessments of the
applications, and the rapporteur should prepare a very brief summary of the three reviewers’ assessment of the
application. For sifted applications, the rapporteur should also prepare a suggestion for the application’s final
overall grade; typically 3 or lower.
1
According to the decision of the Science Council March 13, 2013, about a simplified process for applications that should not be considered for ranking by the review
panels.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
18
The review panel meeting
The panel meeting will begin with an overview of the tasks of the review panel, and the agenda, given by the
senior research officer and the review panel chair. The review panel will also discuss how to calibrate the use of
the grading scale by the individual reviewers. The panel members are given an opportunity to report any further
conflict of interest, and whether there are any applications among the sifted ones that they would like to discuss
at the meeting. After this initial phase, the applications will be discussed by grant type. The recommended order
is by average normalized ranking.
Panel members with conflict of interest must leave the meeting room when the applications in question will be
discussed. The rapporteur will briefly present the contents of the application and the preliminary statement, and
will also suggest the grades. The two other reviewers will then have the possibility to complement with their
assessments or deviating opinions with respect to the application under discussion. Subsequently, the other
panel members may offer their comments or expertise before the review panel will agree about the joint final
grade for each criterion and the joint final statement. The rapporteur should take careful notes during this
discussion in order to be able to write the review panel’s final statement of the application in question. Also, the
detailed notes may serve as valuable input in response to potential and later complaints from applicants.
External reviews are read to the panel by the review panel chair. Funding (amounts and grant time) will be
discussed after all applications have been evaluated and ranked, normally during the second day of the meeting.
The review panel should make a common ranking list of ten applications of Project Grants and Starting Grants
outside the review panel’s own budget frame. A short time will be set aside to jointly decide the overall grade
for the sifted applications.
The following must be checked at the end of the meeting:
 That the suggested funding in total is in line with the total budget of the review panel.
 That the average grant size and grant period is in line with the guidelines.
 Grants to Senior Researchers (Rådsforskare) see section 2.3, heading ”Research Project Grants”.
That the success rate for male and female applicants is the same relative to the number of
applications. If there is a large discrepancy the observer should initiate a discussion on the reasons for
this. The panel should make adjustments or prepare an explanation to the Scientific Council.
After the review panel meeting
After the review panel meeting, the rapporteur is responsible for writing the review panel’s final statement for
the application. This should be entered in Prisma within a week from the meeting. The applications of Project
Grants and Starting Grants ranked outside the budget frame by the review panel will be discussed by the
Redistribution group comprised of the members of the Scientific Council.
The Swedish Energy Agency’s panel for Energy-Oriented Basic Research and the Interdisciplinary panel
(‘Tvärgruppen’) will have their meetings after the regular review panel meetings (see section 3.5 for principles
for assigning freed resources for the special initiative for interdisciplinary research).
Decision
The Scientific Council for Natural and Engineering Sciences will make the formal decisions regarding Project
Grants and Starting Grants. The decisions will be taken on 25 October 2016. The decisions will become public
for the applicants in Prisma and at www.vr.se approximately one week after the decision being made. The
Swedish Energy Agency will take the decisions on Research Project Grants – Energy-Oriented Basic Research
at a later date.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
19
3.5 Guidelines for the review panel’s funding suggestion and
rejection of applications on formal grounds
Flexibility for the review panel regarding the distribution of funds between Project
Grants and Starting Grants
The Scientific Council will assign separate budget frames for the categories Research Project Grants and
Starting Grants to the review panels. If the review panel finds the quality of the applications in one category
better than the other, the review panel can transfer a small part of the budget to the category where the scientific
quality is higher. A guideline is to transfer approximately at most one grant between the two categories.
Awarded amount
The lowest amount the applicant can apply for is SEK 300 000 per year, including indirect costs, for Project
Grants and Starting Grants. The maximum amount is SEK 6 million for the whole four-year period, i.e. on
average SEK 1.5 million per year.
It is common practice that the projects are not granted the full amount applied for. The Swedish Research
Council has decided that the average grants size for Project Grants and Starting Grants should be at least SEK
800 000 per year in Natural and Engineering Sciences. The average awarded amount may differ between
different review panels. Each review panel should therefore, before their funding suggestion is forwarded to the
Scientific Council, check that the average grants size does not fall below the average grant size for the previous
year, both for the applications that will be funded from the review panel’s own budget and those that are ranked
by the panel just outside the budget limit.
The grant period is a maximum of four years for Project Research Grants and Starting Grants. Each panel will
be given a budget frame per year for the years 2017-2020. Although the proposed awarded amount per project
may vary between the years, the review panel is not to exceed the given budget frame for any year.
Principles for assigning freed resources when applications are funded from
Special Initiatives
Tvärgruppen, the panel that will assess the interdisciplinary applications where the research involves more than
one subject area will meet in October 2016. If an application funded within the regular review panel’s budget
frame receives funding from the interdisciplinary panel, this generates a fiscal space for financing additional
applications within the budget allocation of the review panel according to the ranking list of the review panel.
Restrictions regarding several Project Grants being awarded to the same
researcher
An overview of which grants that can be applied for or held simultaneously can be found in Appendix 8. The
eligibility check is done by the research officers at the Swedish Research Council before the applications are
sent to the review panels.
Research Project Grants
Researchers may submit only one application in the call for undirected Research Project Grants as a project
leader. Researchers who are the project leaders of an ongoing undirected Research Project Grant may not apply
for another undirected Research Project Grant. However, there is a transition rule 2 for researchers who currently
have two ongoing undirected Project Grants: When the first of the two ongoing grants expires, an applicant in
2
The new rule of allowing only one undirected Research P roject Grant per researcher was introduced 2015. The transition rule o nly applies to a handful researchers.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
20
this category can apply for a new undirected Project Grant. The application may only be granted for a period
equal to the remaining period of the other ongoing grant.
Project Grants targeted towards specific areas are usually announced with a smaller focus (2016 this includes:
3R, Energy-Oriented Basic Research, Development Research, Sustainability and Resilience, Conditions for
Growth, Culture and Cultural Heritage, and Research on Racism). An applicant can still have one undirected
Project Grant and a Project Grant targeted towards a specific area at the same time.
An applicant is also still allowed to be a participating researcher in another researcher's undirected Project
Grant application.
Starting Grants
Researchers may submit only one application in the call for Starting Grants. Recipients of a Project Research
Grants for Junior Researchers may not apply for Starting Grants.
Those applying for a Starting Grant may not concurrently apply for an undirected Project Grant, or have been
awarded a Project Research Grant from the Swedish Research Council for the same grant period. This also
applies to Project Research Grants that are associated with an earlier employment as a researcher or research
assistant.
Applicants for Starting Grants may however at the same time apply for targeted Project Grants (2016 this
includes: 3R, Energy-Oriented Basic Research, Development Research, Sustainability and Resilience,
Conditions for Growth, Culture and Cultural Heritage, and Research on Racism), provided that the project idea
is different.
To reject applications on formal grounds
An application may be rejected on formal grounds, which means that it is rejected from further review without
being evaluated or graded. In order to reject an application on formal grounds, an official decision by the
Swedish Research Council is needed. Hence a Scientific Council, or a review panel, cannot themselves decide
to reject an application on formal grounds.
If a reviewer, while evaluating, identifies any reason that implies that the applications should be rejected on
formal grounds, they should notify the handling officer in charge of the review panel. Normally, it is sufficient
that the reviewer gives the reason during the review panel meeting. The research officer then takes the
responsibility for the further formal processing.
3.6 Guidelines for the review panel’s final statements
During the review panel meeting, the discussion will form the basis for the review panel’s written final
statement. The panel’s written statement is a very important document and it represents the basis of the final
decision, and will eventually also be sent to the applicant. It is important that the final statement is consistent
with the grade, contains the necessary clarifications for the grades awarded to the application and specifies the
strengths and weaknesses of the application. The review panel should particularly consider the Guiding
questions when writing the final statement (see Section 3.3). Reference to the expected decision must be
avoided in the text.
The preliminary statement written prior to the review panel’s meeting is the basis for the final statement. It
should be modified to reflect the review panel’s joint assessment of the application. The rapporteur is
responsible for writing the review panel’s final statement after the review panel meeting. It should be submitted
in Prisma within a week from the review panel meeting. The chair of the review panel may ask the rapporteur
to give additional information in the final assessment after the deadline has passed. For sifted applications the
grade and a standardized written statement will be entered in Prisma by the research officer.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
21
4. TIMETABLE OF THE REVIEW PROCESS 2016
5 April
Closing date for applications in Natural and Engineering Sciences
11 April
Meeting of the Scientific Council (Decision about review panel members)
22 April
Panel chairs nominate applications to the Interdisciplinary panel
19 May
Meeting of the chairs of the review panels
30 May
Final list of all interdisciplinary applications to be reviewed in two panels
31 May
Deadline for placing applications in review panels and for moving applications
6 June
Last day for reporting conflict of interest
13 June
Deadline for allocation of applications to reviewers (internal)
20 June
Deadline for request for external reviews from other councils or review panels
22 Aug-15 Sept
Review panel meetings in Stockholm
5 October
Final statements will be sent to the Swedish Energy Agency and the Interdisciplinary panel
5 October
Meeting of the Redistribution group
25 October
Meeting of the Scientific Council (Grant decisions)
Early November
Grant decisions are published in Prisma and at www.vr.se
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
22
APPENDIX 1. SWEDISH RESEARCH COUNCIL IN BRIEF
The Swedish Research Council is the largest research funding agency in Sweden. The Council finances more
than one-tenth of the research carried out at Swedish higher education institutions. Only direct government
appropriations fund a larger share. The Swedish Research Council provides support for research of the highest
scientific quality in all fields of science. Most of this relates to basic research.
A large part of the funding provided by the Swedish Research Council consists of support of scientific
projects for which the researchers, themselves, have formulated the research topics and project aims, and
developed methods to arrive at conclusions. In order to facilitate career development for researchers and make
it easier for them to gain broader experience of the research community, the Council offers career support. In
addition, it provides funding for research infrastructures, research environments, graduate schools, various
forms of collaboration, and Swedish membership in a host of international organisations and major research
facilities.
In addition to funding research, the Swedish Research Council is also responsible for communication about
research and research results. The Council is also tasked with preparing analyses relating to research policy,
acting an advisor to the Government on research policy issues, and evaluating research.
The vision of the Swedish Research Council is to play a leading role in developing Swedish research of the
highest scientific quality, and thereby contribute to the development of society.
SEK 6.4 billion for research in 2015
In 2015, the Swedish Research Council paid SEK 6.4 billion in funding, mostly to basic research in all areas of
science and research infrastructures. A large part of the research funding went to projects that were proposed by
the researchers themselves (researcher-initiated research).
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
23
Peer review
The Swedish Research Council recommends peer review as the best method of assessing scientific quality. The
confidence of the research community in the Swedish Research Council is premised on the review being
conducted by a knowledgeable, objective, impartial a transparent manner.
A total of 769 researchers served as members of review panels in 2015, with 41% of the members of the
review panels being associated with higher education institutions outside of Sweden.
Administration and organisation of the Swedish Research Council
The Swedish Research Council is a government agency within the Ministry of Education. The Council is
headed by a Board and a Director-General, who is the head of the agency.
The Board of the Research Council has overall responsibility for operations as a whole, and makes decisions
on general and strategic research issues according to the directives and guidelines adopted by the Parliament
and Government. Six of the members are elected by an assembly of electors, which, in turn, are appointed by
the higher education institutions in Sweden. The Chairperson and the remaining two members of the Board are
appointed by the Government.
Under the Board, there are the scientific councils for humanities and social sciences, medicine and health,
and natural and engineering sciences, the council for research infrastructures, as well as the committees for
educational sciences, artistic research, and development research. Finally, there are committees for clinical
therapy research and the national coordination of clinical studies.
The majority of the members of scientific councils, councils and committees are selected by the research
community. As in the case of the election of the members of the Board, these are elected by electors. Some of
the members are appointed by the Board of the Swedish Research Council, while several additional members
are appointed by the Government.
The Director-General is responsible to the Board for ensuring that operations are conducted in accordance
with the directives and guidelines decided by the Board. The Swedish Research Council has about 170
employees, and is divided into four departments – the departments for research funding, research policy,
research infrastructure and communication, respectively.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
24
APPENDIX 2: CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY
Minutes of the Board of the Swedish Research Council no 2, 2014
Appendix 1
Conflict of interest policy
Decision 2014-04-10
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 Proc edure 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
 there is some other special circumstance that is likely to undermine confidence in his impartiality in the
matter.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
25
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 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.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
26
 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.
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 well-informed 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,
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
27
 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.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
28
APPENDIX 3. STRATEGY FOR GENDER EQUALITY AT
THE SWEDISH RESEARCH COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF THE SWEDISH RESEARCH COUNCIL NR 2, 2014
APPENDIX 2
Strategy for Gender Equality at the Swedish Research Council
Decision 2014-04-10
Goals for Achieving Gender Equality at the Swedish Research Council
In compliance with the Instructions Ordinance, the Swedish Research Council promotes gender equality
throughout its sphere of activities. The strategy for achieving this aim is to strive for gender equality throughout
the organisation. Hence, the Swedish Research Council has established the following operational goals:
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 rates 3 and receive the same average size of grants,
taking into account the nature of the research and the type of grant. 4
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
goals requires the involvement of the entire agency, including the Scientific Councils and the other councils
and committees (SCCCs). 5 Unless otherwise specified, the Director General is responsible for advancing the
efforts towards achieving equality.
Introduction
This strategy applies to the Swedish Research Council as a research-funding organisation. A special equal
opportunites plan addresses the work of achieving equality within the Swedish Research Council as a public
agency.
The primary objective of the Swedish Research Council is to allocate funding to research of the highest
scientific quality and that best promotes innovation. Achieving this objective requires 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.
3
4
5
Success rates for women and men refer to the percentage of applications approved among total applications received from women and men
respectively.
Attainment of the goal must be assessed in the context of a sufficiently large number of decisions.
T hese 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.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
29
Achieving gender equality throughout the Swedish Research Council’s spheres 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 Goals
The Swedish Research Council must analyse its activities from a perspective of gender equality 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 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 goals should be achieved.
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." (Goal 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.
Gender distribution should be considered before appointing the evaluation panels. Work involving equality
should take a long-term perspective. This means, e.g. that in certain areas where 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. The same applies in instances where women are
greatly underrepresented.
If the proposed composition of an evaluation panel falls outside of the 40% to 60% range, this must be
specified in the decision-making material prepared for the Secretary General concerned. This material must
also include justification for the deviation and describe the actions taken to achieve an equal gender
distribution.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
30
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." (Goal 2)
Currently, women and men are applying 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 rates6 and receive
the same average size of grants, taking into account the nature of the research and the type of grant.”7 (Goal 3)
Before the Swedish Research Council decides to introduce a new type of grant or makes a new research
investment the effects on gender equality must be analysed and consideration 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, as
well as gender equality as a factor for raising quality should be emphasized in the text of the calls, the
evaluation criteria and types of evaluations 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 assistant research secretaries 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 an 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
6
7
See footnote 1.
See footnote 2.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
31
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 size of the grants 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 decisionmaking papers where relevant and possible. Direct and eventual indirec t consequences for gender balance
should be discussed in each analysis and evaluation. 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 genderneutral 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.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
32
APPENDIX 4. ETHICS PRINCIPLES: APPROVALS, AND
GOOD RESEARCH PRACTICE
The administrative entity8 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.
8
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.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
33
APPENDIX 5. GENERAL GUIDELINES
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF THE SWEDISH RESEARCH COUNCIL NR. 2, 2016
APPENDIX 3
Guidelines from the Board of the Swedish Research Council to
Scientific Councils, other Councils and Committees in preparation
for Evaluations in 2016
The board has in connection with the delegation of research funds to the Scientific Councils, Councils and
Committees (SCCCs) decided on the general conditions and guidelines that apply to the use of these funds.
This document is an expansion and a clarification of those guidelines. In evaluating grants and prior to funding
decisions, the following apply:
Applications that bridge or overlap subject areas
Every SCCC is to take responsibility to assure that each application receives proper review. A special review
process for interdisciplinary research has been determined. This process only applies to those applications
whose subject areas span more than one scientific council/committee area. For grant applications that fall on
the borderline with other SCCCs within the Swedish Research Council, or that involve multiple SCCCs, asking
for an external review from a member of another panel representing the complementary expertise is an option.
Grounds for evaluation of applications
The SCCC should ensure that the evaluation is based on the contents of the submitted application. Information
that has not been requested by the Swedish Research Council, for example letters of recommendation, is not
part of the application and should therefore not be accorded any value in assessing the application. If the
application is not formed according to instructions, it should be taken into consideration in the evaluation.
Long-term perspective and gender equality
The SCCC should promote the Council’s upholding of the long-term perspective of research funding. This
includes the duration of the average grant period and the average grant size. The SCCCs should ensure that this
does not worsen the prerequisites for junior researchers to receive funding and that equality between men and
women are taken into consideration. The gender equality strategy of the Swedish Research Council prescribes
men and women should have the same success rate and the same average grant size with regards to the nature
of the research and the grant type. Gender equality should be used as a boundary condition when prioritizing
between applications of equal quality. Before the SCCCs make their decision, the Secretary General presents
the recommendations of the evaluation panels for grant approval from a gender equality perspective; success
rate and average grant size should be considered in every step of the evaluation process.
SCCC should present the outcome to the board and include comments on any differences in the aspects
mentioned above. If gender equality has not been obtained, the SCCC shall present an elaborate plan on how to
overcome the differences.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
34
Assessing budget and indirect costs
The grants of the Swedish Research Council for research projects at universities and university colleges must
include financing for direct and indirect costs in the same proportions as calculated for the project as a whole.
The Swedish Research Council thus requests that information on the total cost of each project, that is, both
direct and indirect costs, is reported in the application for Project Research Grants. The SCCCs shall ensure that
different levels of indirect costs are not considered in the evaluation of applications and that the reasonableness
of the applications proposed budget in relation to the project’s implementation is evaluated. The SCCCs are
responsible for the evaluation of the scientific quality of the applications according to the instructions.
Addressing Open Access in grant applications to the Swedish Research Council
Researchers that are granted research funding from the Swedish Research Council must publish the results in
web-based journals that apply Open Access, or after publishing in a traditional journal, deposit the material at
the time of publishing in an open searchable database. The material should be made openly accessible within
six month. For researchers that are granted funding within Educational Sciences or Humanities and Social
sciences, twelve months apply for making the research accessible.Concerning reporting of research funded
wholly or in part by the Swedish Research Council, only papers published with Open Access are accepted.
Conflicts of interest in the evaluation and decision-making process
The conflict-of-interest policy of the Swedish Research Council, adopted by the Board on the 10 of April 2014,
are to be followed during the evaluation and decision-making process.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
35
APPENDIX 6. THE SWEDISH RESEARCH COUNCIL’S
TRAVEL POLICY
Plan ahead for your trip to make it as time- and cost-effective as possible!
Appointed travel suppliers
You as a traveller determine your own itinerary. Every portion of a trip, such as the tickets, car rental, and other
travel arrangements, must be booked with one of the following travel suppliers, appointed by the Swedish
Research Council:
American Express Business Travel
Phone +46 771 - 41 00 26
E-mail: [email protected]
State customer: Swedish Research Council / Vetenskapsrådet
State customer number: 1612002115
State reference code and reference person: This information is provided by the administrator for your
review panel.
When you book travel using this information, the invoice will be sent directly to the Swedish Research Council.
SJ
Phone: +46 (0) 771-75 75 55, press 1
State customer: Swedish Research Council / Vetenskapsrådet
State customer number: 937608
State reference code and reference person: The information is provided by the research officer for your
review panel.
When you order using this information, the invoice will be sent directly to the Swedish Research Council.
When you order directly at www.sj.se, you will pay for the travel and later claim the cost using the
reimbursement form (see the section “Reimbursement for Travel Expenses,” below).
Mode and means of transport
You are responsible for choosing the most suitable mode of transport, taking into account the cost and time
involved, as well as safety and environmental considerations. Due to financial reasons, journeys should be
booked as early as possible, preferably 14 days in advance and if possible even earlier.
Travel by train
For journeys up to 500 km, travel by train should preferably be booked, if time allows. Travel by train should
be booked primarily in economy both for X2000, SJ 3000 and other trains. For booking of MTR Express
(Stockholm – Gothenburg and vice versa) the first-hand choice should be the FIX class, and after that the
FLEX class. The Swedish Research Council’s customer number should be stated when booking travel by SJ.
Single compartment may be booked if traveling by night train.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
36
Travel by air
Bookable classes on domestic flights, according to the government framework agreement, are Econcomy
flexible and Economy with restrictions (non-rebookable). The latter should be booked on travels where timetables for conferences and meetings are fixed.
Air travel within Europe should be booked in Economy class. The same rule applies for intercontinental travel.
Please contact your research officer if you have any other requests.
Travel by private car
You may use your own car if this is the least expensive 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 kilometre.
Travel to and from the airport
Within Sweden, public transport should primarily be used to/from the railway station, bus terminal/station or
airport. From Arlanda airport, the Arlanda express train is the fastest and most environmentally-friendly way to
travel to central Stockholm.
Journeys to and from airports often make up a large proportion of travel costs. It is primarily travelling by taxi
that is expensive, but by planning their journey to and from the airport cost can be lowered significantly. An
airport taxi may be used if you are travelling with heavy luggage. Taxi journeys to and from airports should
always be booked at a shared rate to reduce costs.
Hotel stays
Accommodation in connection with the evaluation-panel meetings is arranged by the Swedish Research
Council according to the information you provide the administrator of your review panel. Should you need
additional accommodation before or after the meeting, you must provide this information when you make your
reservation.
Reimbursement for travel expenses
A form for reimbursement of expenses related to your travel can be found on our web page
http://www.vr.se/forskningsfinansiering/blanketter and should always be used for claiming reimbursements
from the Swedish Research Council.
The form, which must be signed by you, the traveller, must contain all the particulars needed in order to
arrange for reimbursement of expenses: original receipts, vouchers, and train and air tickets (e-tickets) should
be enclosed. Amounts in foreign currency should be recalculated according to the exchange rate at the time of
transaction. Send the reimbursement form to the research officer of your review panel. The costs for which you
are entitled to reimbursement according to the Swedish Research Council’s reimbursement rules will be paid
out to you.
Expenses for food and beverages are not reimbursed.
A reimbursement form related to a particular month should be sent in before the end of the following month.
The traveller’s entitlement to reimbursement expires if the travel claim is not submitted within one year
of the month in which the trip took place.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
37
APPENDIX 7. GUIDELINES FOR NE REVIEW PANELS’
COMPOSITION
The review panels’ composition is decided by the Scientific Council. After the Scientific Council have elected
the review panel chair, the chairs, in consultation with the responsible observers, nominates members of each
review panel. The observer proposes the panel members for decision in the Scientific Council. Applications
from members of the Board, Scientific Council, review panels and committees may not be reviewed in a group
where the person concerned is the chair, a member or an observer.
The following rules apply to the review panels’ composition:
 The number of review panel members, including the chair, should be at least seven. A review panel
does not normally have more than thirteen panel member including the chair. This can however be
exceeded if the review panel has a large number of applications leading to an unreasonable workload
for the reviewers. 9
 The chair of the review panel is elected for one year. Normally, the term of office for the review
panel’s chair is three years, and may be extended to a maximum of six years. (This includes years
when the chair does not play an active part in the review work because, for example, they are
submitting their own applications.)
 Vice chairs are appointed by the chair of the review panel, after discussion with the observer.
 The term of office for review-panel members is one year, and may be extended to a maximum of six
years.
 After six years in the review panel, the chair and members enter into a waiting period that normally
lasts three years; thereafter, they can return as members or chair in a review panel.
 Exceptions from the rules on term of office in an review panel are permitted in two special cases: 1)
people who have been members of review panels for one or two years and who are then appointed as
chairs by the Scientific Council, who may sit their full term of office as chairs or vice chairs (i.e. 3+3
years); 2) people who have been members of review panels for four or five years and who are then
appointed as chairs by the Scientific Council for a three-year term of office (after which the waiting
period ensues).
 The review panels’ composition must show a broad spread, both in terms of subjects and
geographically.
 A minimum of 30% of the panel members should be researchers based outside Sweden, preferably
more.
 Members of the infrastructure (RFI) panels are not eligible (for the same term of office).
 We must strive to attain an even gender distribution (40–60% of each sex) in the panel. If this is
unattainable, the observer must explain the reason in writing to the Scientific Council and also state
which persons of the underrepresented sex were invited to join but refused.
 Vice-Chancellors, Deans and Heads of major departments should not be appointed as members of
review panels.
 The proposed review-panel members (including the chair) may not themselves (as applicants or coapplicant) have submitted applications that are to be dealt with in the review panel. In such cases,
either the review-panel members (including the chair) must refrain from the review work for the year,
or their applications must be dealt with in other review panels. The guideline for co-applicants
concerns only the types of grants where the evaluation panel proposes decision to the Scientific
Council.
9
The total number of applications for a member of the evaluation panel to review should not exceed 35.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
38
APPENDIX 8. OVERVIEW OF GRANTS THAT CAN BE
APPLIED FOR OR ON-GOING IN PARALLEL
Which grants can I apply for simultaneously in 2016 (if I do not have an
ongoing grant)?
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
39
Which grants may I apply for if I have an ongoing grant and fulfil all other
eligibility criteria?
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
40
APPENDIX 9. REVIEW PANELS AND CONTACT
DETAILS
E-mail addresses have the format [email protected] (a, o instead of å, ä, ö, ø).
NT-1 Mathematical Sciences
Algebra; Computational mathematics and numerical analysis; Discrete mathematics; Geometry; Mathematical
logic; Mathematical analysis; Optimization; Probability theory and statistics; Systems theory; Applied
mathematics
Contact: Annika Johansén 08-546 44 251, Dan Holtstam 08-546 44 152
NT-2 Computer science
Computer architecture; Systems engineering; Computer engineering; Interaction Technologies; HumanComputer interaction (Interaction Design); Software engineering; Language technology (Computational
linguistics); Information systems; Theoretical computer science
Contact: Nina Glimster 08-546 44 316, Per Hyenstrand 08-546 44 292
NT-3 Subatomic physics, space physics and astronomy
Accelerator physics; Astrophysics; Astronomy; Astroparticle physics; Fusion; Cosmology; Mathematical
physics; Plasma physics; Relativity theory; Space physics; Radiation physics (non-medical aspects); Subatomic
physics
Contact: Annika Johansén 08-546 44 251, Emma Olsson 08-546 44 204
NT-4 Atomic and molecular physics, optics and condensed matter physics
Atomic and molecular physics; Computational physics; Chemical physics; Cluster physics; Condensed matter
physics; Quantum information and quantum optics; Quantum liquids and quantum materials; Macromolecular
physics; Optics; Statistical physics; Structural and vibrational physics
Contact: Sven Larsson Östergren 08-546 44 215, Gergana Angelova Hamberg 08-546 44 173
NT-5 Analytical, physical and theoretical chemistry
Analytical chemistry; Biophysical chemistry; Physical chemistry; Chemometrics; Quantum chemistry;
Microfluidics; Molecular simulations; Theoretical chemistry; Surface and colloid chemistry
Contact: Daniel Gustafsson 08-546 44 027, Camilla Grunditz 08-546 44 155
NT-6 Organic and inorganic chemistry
Bioinorganic chemistry; Electrochemistry; Pharmaceutical Chemistry; Solid-state chemistry; Cluster chemistry;
Nuclear chemistry; Solution chemistry; Materials chemistry (synthesis aspects); Organometallic Chemistry;
Inorganic chemistry; Organic chemistry; Polymer chemistry
Contact: Paola Norlin 08-546 44 311, Marianne Hall 08-546 44 057
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
41
NT-7 Geology and geophysics
Geodesy; Geophysics; Geology; Geotechnical engineering; Glaciology; Quaternary geology; Mineralogy;
Physical geography; Palaeoclimatology; Palaeontology and palaeobiology; Petrology; Tectonics
Contact: Sven Larsson Östergren 08-546 44 215, Johanna Spångberg 08-546 44 138
NT-8 Soil, Air and water processes
Geochemistry; Hydrology; Environmental chemistry; Climatology; Soil science; Meteorology and atmospheric
science; Oceanography
Contact: Nina Frödin 08-546 44 137, Johanna Spångberg 08-546 44 138
NT-9 Biochemistry and structural biology
Biochemistry; Glycobiology; Nucleic Acids Biochemistry; Protein chemistry and enzymology; Molecular
biophysics; Molecular biotechnology; Structural biology
Contact: Daniel Gustafsson 08-546 44 027, Mårten Jansson 08-546 44 020
NT-10 Cell and molecular biology
Cell biology; Epigenetics; Functional genomics; Immunology; Molecular biology; Neurobiology and
neurochemistry; Proteomics
Contact: Daniel Gustafsson 08-546 44 027, Maud Quist 08-546 44 212
NT-11 Organism biology
Bioinformatics; Botanics; Genetics; Microbiology; Systems biology; Toxicology; Developmental biology;
Zoology
Contact: Erika Godoy 08-546 44 029, Ulrika Kaby 08-546 44 124
NT-12 Ecology, systematics and evolution
Biological systematics; Ecology; Ethology; Evolutionary biology
Contact: Sven Larsson Östergren 08-546 44 215, Maud Quist 08-546 44 212
NT-13 Electronics, electrical engineering, semiconductor physics and photonics
Electrical Measurement Technology and Instrumentation; Electrophysics; Electronics; Electrical Engineering;
Power Engineering; Photonics; Semiconductor Physics; Radio engineering
Contact: Erika Godoy 08-546 44 029, Gergana Angelova Hamberg 08-546 44 173
NT-14 Signals and systems
Computer vision; Communication systems; Control engineering; Robotics; Signal processing
Contact: Nina Frödin 08-546 44 137, Winnie Birberg 08-546 44 252
NT-15 Applied physics
Biophysics; Low-temperature physics; Magnetism and Spintronics; Mesoscopic physics; Nanoscience and
nanotechnology; Sensor technology; Superconductivity; Thin film technology; Surface and colloidal physics
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
42
Contact: Daniel Gustafsson 08-546 44 027, Tomas Andersson 08-546 44 173
NT-16 Mechanical engineering
Biomechanics; Energy engineering; Vehicle engineering; Solid mechanics; Mechanics of materials; Rheology;
Reactor science; Aerospace engineering; Fluid mechanics and acoustics; Tribology
Contact: Nina Glimster 08-546 44 316, Tomas Andersson 08-546 44 173
NT-17 Bioprocess technology, chemical engineering and environmental
engineering
Bioenergy; Biocatalysis and Enzyme technology; Bio-nanotechnology; Bioprocess technology; Catalysis;
Chemical process engineering; Chemical engineering; Food chemistry; Food technology; Pharmaceutical
biotechnology; Environmental technology; Natural Resources engineering; Paper, pulp and fibre technology;
Separation engineering; Water engineering
Contact: Paola Norlin 08-546 44 311, Camilla Grunditz 08-546 44 155
NT-18 Materials science
Manufacturing, surface and joining technology; Ceramics; Composite materials and Composite engineering;
Corrosion engineering; Materials Design; Materials Characterisation; Materials chemistry (not synthesis);
Materials structure; Metallic materials and metallurgy; Polymers and Polymer Engineering; Thin film materials
Contact: Nina Glimster 08-546 44 316, Tomas Andersson 08-546 44 173
NT-19 Biomedical engineering
Artificial organs; Biomaterials; Bio-optics; Biosensor technology; Physiological Measurement Technology and
Modelling; Medical equipment engineering; Medical Image and Signal Processing; Medical biotechnology;
Medical ergonomics; Medical informatics; Medical laboratory technology and measurement technology;
Medical materials and prosthesis technology; Radiology and image processing; Radiation physics (medical
aspects); Speech Technology and Technical Audiology
Contact: Annika Johansén 08-546 44 251, Dan Holtstam 08-546 44 152
Secretary General
Lars Kloo 08-546 44 161
Coordinator
Emma Olsson 08-546 44 204
INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS NATURAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2016
43