The view of a reviewer Johan Ahnström, PhD Ecology (SLU) Länsstyrelsen Uppsala län County administrative board of Uppsala

Take home message Read instructions for the call Apply what you read in instructions Help the reviewers to find the answers to the evaluation criterion Societal value and communication with stakeholders are as important as the three science criterion

This presentation is based on my personal reflection of review process of 2014-2016 in the group Natural environment

Who will read your application? Scientist from mostly European-context Scientist, a few, from the US/Canadian context Stakeholder representatives from the Swedish context A mixture of scientific disciplines 4 reviewers per application

Who will read your application Each reviewer will state their competence (1-3) for each application Each reviewer will state their conflict of interest Each reviewer will review and score 30-40 applications. Each reviewer will do this during summer

To whom are you writing the proposal? An interested reviewer, with many applications to read, that is not necessarily an expert in the field. THUS help the reviewer to find the important pieces of the application THUS guide the reviewer to find information of each criterion that FORMAS has stated

The criterion Research question Methods Scientific quality Societal value Communication with stakeholders

Scoring 7 – Outstanding. The application successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Shortcomings are insignificant. 6 – Excellent. The application successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Shortcomings are minor. 5 – Very good. The application addresses the criterion very well, but with some notable shortcoming. 4 – Good. The application addresses the criterion well, but with several notable shortcomings. 3 – Acceptable. While the application broadly addresses the criterion, but there are considerable weaknesses. 2 – Poor. The application addresses the criterion in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses. 1 – Insufficient. The application fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information.

Research question 3.1 Criteria for Scientific Quality Research topic Scientific significance of the objectives of the research. Originality and novelty of the purpose, theory and hypotheses. Possibility of significant scientific results. Objectives consistent with the call.

Research question Should be the easy one… But many applications lack a clearly stated question A huge number of application lack hypothesis Be ”lagom”

Methods Methods and performance Feasibility and suitability of the scientific methods. Innovativeness of the methods. Specific and realistic work plan. Specific and realistic plan for scientific publication and dissemination of information. Coordination of the project and the research group. Suitability of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approach. Ethical considerations Feasibility of the budget in relation to the structure of the project and the anticipated results.

Methods Often hard to follow Be sure to match question, methods and societal relevance Be explicit Be clear and help the reviewers understand

Scientific competence Scientific quality of the publications. Ability to carry out the project according to the project plan. Experience of supervision of younger researchers (postdoctoral and doctoral students, as well as degree project students for applicants who are young researchers themselves). Experience of project leadership. National and international activities, including projects, networks, commissions, honorary commissions, participation in or organisation of workshops and conferences. Interest in, experience and ability to disseminate research and research results to stakeholders/users. Strength and competitiveness of the research group.

Scientific competence Make a clear CV Be sure to state parental/sick leave Cooperation is good but make it realistic and state the role and the amount of time that each researcher will spend. No namedropping

From science to society

Societal value Potential societal value of the research topic The research topic addresses important social/sector issues within the focus areas of the call (all of the responsibility areas of Formas in the annual open call), nationally and/or internationally. The project may, over a short-term or long-term perspective, contribute to sustainable development nationally and/or internationally. Stakeholder/end user needs have been taken into account in the design of the project. The objectives are consistent with the call.

Societal value As important as the previous criterion Be clear and precise and do not overestimate the research If the project is a basic science project be sure state that and connect to how this in the future fits into new research and in the long run society ”Fullfill the national environmental objectives” – is way to vague and often shows that the reseracher does not have a clue about the objectives. One example of a clumpsy connection to society

Communication with stakeholders Communication with stakeholders/users Description of relevant stakeholders/users. Specific and realistic plan for the involvement of relevant stakeholders/users in the project and for the communication of the research and its results to these parties.   Clarifications: Stakeholders/users must be regarded in a broad sense as actors outside and/or sometimes also within the scientific community (depending on whether the project has a more basic research or applied research character), nationally as well as internationally, who can benefit from the research results or facilitate the future use of the results in society. Communication with stakeholders/users may take different forms and have different time scales depending on the research topic addressed, but should include different forms of dialogue with stakeholders and potential users of the research and the research results.

Communication with stakeholders As important as the first three ”In the end we will arrange a seminar to disseminate our results” – that is not involvement of stakeholders Find important stakeholders, establish contact and set a workplan to engage the stakeholders

Highest ranked and the most unevenly applications will be discussed Reviewers meeting where the final scores are set and statement discussed and written

Comments Fun to review Sad to downgrade good applications that has missed to be explicit about one or more criteria Use hypothesis or clear research objectives No ”read between the lines”

Questions?