RSF: Rating scale and review criteria for scientific quality

6

outstanding

demonstrates exceptional novelty and innovation; has potential to substantially advance science at a global level; includes high-gain projects that can include risks

5

excellent

is extremely good in international comparison – contains no significant elements to be improved

4

very good

is in general sound, but contains a few elements that could be improved

3

good

is in general sound, but contains important elements that should be improved

2

fair

contains flaws; is in need of substantial modification or improvement

1

poor

contains severe flaws that are intrinsic to the proposed project or the application

1 Research plan

1.1 Scientific quality, framing of the phenomena

Guiding questions:

How does the project show high scientific quality and potential for innovative outcomes across disciplinary boundaries? How are the problem framing and the choice of disciplinary perspectives and methodologies justified? Is there a unifying principle, frame or concept that provides coherence? Does the proposal indicate synergistic or innovative outcomes from the interaction between disciplines in a solution-oriented way?

1.2 Research plan

Guiding questions:

Are the objectives sound and well-presented and is the research plan realistic? Have relevant approaches, methods, materials and research partners been identified and appropriately incorporated into the research plan? Do you consider the application multidisciplinary, and are multiple organisations and research fields included in the work packages? Is the management plan appropriate and will it support leadership, coordination, interaction and exchange of information between work packages? Does the research environment support the project, such as with appropriate research and/or technology infrastructures?

1.3 Good scientific practice

Guiding questions:

Are there any ethical issues involved and, if so, how are they taken into account? Does the publication plan support open access? Does the data management plan responsibly support the reuse of research data after the project has been completed?

2 Competence of applicants, quality of research   collaboration

Guiding questions:

What are the merits and scientific expertise of the consortium in both discipline-based research and multidisciplinary research? Are they appropriate and sufficient for the proposed project? How does the collaboration (incl. international collaboration) contribute to the research activities and knowledge?

3 Scientific impact

Guiding question:

What is the project’s level of expected scientific impact? Is there potential for generating impact on multiple disciplines or for advancing further learning and collaboration across disciplinary divides?

4 Overall assessment

List of main strengths and weaknesses of the project; additional comments and recommendations