1. Internal Funds: Some practical suggestions from OR-member(s) Matthias E. Storme Facultaire onderzoeksdag 19 mei 2015

2. Before everything else If you don’t apply, you don’t get anything In case of negative result, take the feedback seriously and re-apply next year ….

3. Declaration of intent Initial application is scanned: - Formal requirements. Check esp. the non-cumul; take this into account when choosing a co- promoter ! (alternative: letter of commitment) - Marginal control on content

4. Referees - Carefully propose (sufficient) referees + indicate 3 relevant publications for each of them (relevance should be clear for OR members from neighbouring disciplines) - Preferably professors - In principle: no co-publication (COI), not at a Belgian university. If good reasons to deviate nevertheless, motivate ! - NEVER contact the referees or OR members with regard to your proposal

5. Proposal Check selection criteria and anticipate on them ! When writing, anticipate the question the reviewers have to answer …. (next slides). Take into account the multidisciplinary character of OR / IOF council: professors from all faculties; esp. relevant are those from neighbouring disciplines

6. Questions for reviewers Question 2: Track record of the research team o A) Discuss the applicants’ impact (only main applicant/promoter and copromoters) on the field through their previous achievements and publications. To what extent did the applicants contribute to the scientific progress in their field? Is their work recognized and cited? o B) International position. Where would you rank the applicants (only main applicant/promoter and copromoters) within the field? Do you consider them key opinion leaders?

7. Track record Choose partners that complement your track record Customs vary between disciplines: single autor / co-authors, etc. Explain them sometimes …. (why this is good scholarship although it would not be in a different discipline) Importance of publications in recognised international journals …. For other publications, explain why nevertheless important International conferences: if a “real” lecture, make that explicit Importance of a good description of your 5 most important publications or achievements; add links to make them easily available for reviewers Convince why your work is important, has impact – can be scientifically and/or socially Take care of describing the importance of your group.

8. Questions for reviewers Question 3: Significance and innovative aspects of the proposal o How would you rate the overall significance of the proposal? Please indicate to what extent you consider this an important project (or not), e.g., by exploring uncharted territory, as a theoretical innovation or a methodological breakthrough, by filling a gap in the literature, by challenging existing paradigms, as an extension of previous achievements, by opening up perspectives for further research, etc.

9. Significance and innovative aspects of the proposal Convince on at least one of those points … Motivate sufficiently as well a) the innovative aspect as b) the scientific or social importance of the proposed work Ad a) Explain the state of the art and what you will add. With perspectives on the past (previous work) and future (possible perspectives) (s. also infra)

10. Questions for reviewers Question 4: Approach and methodology o How do you evaluate the proposal in terms of approach and methodology compared to the state-of-art? Points to address include the conceptual framework, clarity and scope of the research goals, the soundness and appropriateness of the proposed methodology, the feasibility of the work plan, the availability of relevant expertise within the research team, the extent to which the existing literature is taken into account.

11. Approach and methodology Work packages o Carefully describe your work packages. Are they clear, feasible, coherent (necessary parts) ? Use graphics o Indicate the limits of the project (explain why more is not feasible) Methodology – esp. for laywers o “Typical legal desktop research” is not sufficient o Explain why this is nevertheless scholarship althought it differs from all other disciplines o Make normative criteria already explicit o Show some basic knowledge of methodology of social sciences where you plan to use it (e.g. surveys, interviews, statistics, …) Convince that your group has the expertise for this kind of research

12. Questions for reviewers Question 5: Multidisciplinarity A) If we would state: "In interdisciplinary (or multidisciplinary) research, intellectual input, theories and methods and/or techniques of at least two or more research disciplines are needed to advance fundamental understanding or to solve problems whose solutions are beyond the scope of a single discipline or area of research practice", then how would you rate the project proposal? B) Is the research described in the different work packages typical for (the) research domain or are elements of other research domains present?

13. Questions for reviewers Question 8: Future perspectives Is het natraject duidelijk omschreven en haalbaar? Zal het project de kans op behalen van vervolgfinanciering verhogen?