RI:2015
RESEARCH
INFRASTRUCTURES
instruction for reviewers
swedish research council 2015
CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION ... 2
2. NEWS 2015 ... 3
3. INFRASTRUCTURE APPLICATIONS ... 4
4. HANDLING PROCEDURE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE APPLICATIONS 2015 ... 6
5. TIME SCHEDULE RFI 2015 ... 17
APPENDIX 1. SWEDISH RESEARCH COUNCIL IN BRIEF ... 18
APPENDIX 2: CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY ... 20
APPENDIX 3. STRATEGY FOR GENDER EQUALITY AT THE SWEDISH RESEARCH COUNCIL ... 24
APPENDIX 4. ETHICS PRINCIPLES: APPROVALS, AND GOOD RESEARCH PRACTICE... 27
APPENDIX 5. GENERAL GUIDELINES ... 28
APPENDIX 6. USER GUIDE FOR PRISMA ... 30
APPENDIX 7. THE SWEDISH RESEARCH COUNCIL’S TRAVEL POLICY ... 36
1. INTRODUCTION
The instructions in this evaluation handbook are designed to assist you in your assignment as a reviewer for the Council for Research Infrastructures. The handbook contains guidelines on how evaluation and grading of applications concerning research infrastructures should be carried out. It also includes information about the Swedish Research Council’s general guidelines and the policies specific to the Council for Research Infrastructures. You will also find practical instructions on how to use the web-based tool PRISMA when rating your applications and on how to write the evaluations.
The reviewing of applications is an important part of the Council for Research Infrastructure’s activities, which complements the Council’s other assignments such as drawing up strategies, performing evaluations and following up research infrastructures. As a member of one of the Council for Research Infrastructure’s evaluation panels you have an important assignment. Welcome as a reviewer with the Council for Research Infrastructures.
Juni Palmgren Secretary General
Council for Research Infrastructures
2. NEWS 2015
Changes concerning research infrastructures
New model for prioritisation of national infrastructures
In 2015, the Swedish Research Council implements a new model for prioritisation and funding of national infrastructures. More information about the new model can be found at Vetenskapsrådets web-site
(www.vr.se). Three cornerstones in the new model are:
- National infrastructures can apply for longer grants (eight years maximum)
- Applications are requirement to include a total budget for the infrastructures, of which Vetenskapsrådet will fund a maximum of 50 %
- Applications are required to be submitted by a consortium of at least three organisations, supporting the infrastructure.
As a consequence of the new model, both the call text and the criteria for evaluation of infrastructure applications have been re-written this year.
Compared to previous years, the evaluation process 2015 involves additional steps:
i) two international panels (one for evaluation of national infrastructures and one for evaluation of database coordination applications) will be employed and
ii) the Scientific councils of Vetenskapsrådet will give a strategic input regarding the applications.
Application modules
The activities of a research infrastructure are often complex and include many components. In order to help elucidate the infrastructures´ different components the text Description of the infrastructure and its
operations in applications from national infrastructures shall be divided into functional modules, where every module describes a defined subset of the activities of the infrastructure (The module ‘Organisation and leadership’ must always be included). The division of activities into modules will be an important instrument for the evaluation and prioritization of the activities of the infrastructure. This is done by reviewers using the criteria “Prioritization between modules”.
Each module should also be coupled to specific budget posts in the budget. This should allow cross- referencing between budget posts and functions/activities described in the separate modules to facilitate concrete budget-discussions.
General news
PRISMA
The new web-based tool Prisma will be used to administrate the call. Reviewers should create personal accounts in Prisma in order to be able to see and review the applications. More information can be found in Appendix 6, User guide for Prisma. Please turn to your contact person at Vetenskapsrådet for any
questions about Prisma.
3. INFRASTRUCTURE APPLICATIONS
Four types of grants for infrastructure of national importance are included in the call 2015:
1. Grants for National infrastructures
The purpose of this grant is to support coordination, development, construction and operation of national research infrastructures of national importance. The Swedish Research Council is starting to implement a new model for prioritisation and funding of national infrastructures. This infers the following changes in the handling and format of these grants 2015:
- Only existing national infrastructures with an operation grant which expires in 2015 or 2016 can apply
- Funding should be sought for 8 years
- A consortia of three or more universities/research organisations applies - Support letters from the consortia members are required
- The total budget for the infrastructure should be described in the application. The Swedish Research Council might provide up to 50% of the budget. The rest of the costs applied for must be covered by the consortia through other sources (there are no restrictions regarding which these sources are).
Utlysningstext:
http://www.vr.se/forskningsfinansiering/sokabidrag/vetenskapsradetsutlysningar/aktuellautlysningar/forskningsi nfrastrukturbidragnationellinfrastruktur.5.5636787314bdfb2e125be9a7.html
2. Grants for International infrastructures
The aim of the grant is to lend support to Swedish participation in the coordination, development, construction and operation of international research infrastructure of national importance. The grant should give Swedish scientists increased access to infrastructure, by funding of investments, operations, maintenance and user support. The grant can be sought for a maximum of 5 years.
Utlysningstext:
http://www.vr.se/forskningsfinansiering/sokabidrag/vetenskapsradetsutlysningar/aktuellautlysningar/forskn ingsinfrastrukturbidraginternationellinfrastruktur.5.5636787314bdfb2e125bedab.html
3. Operation Grants for Databases in the social sciences and medicine with a focus on individual based data
The aim of the operational grant is to promote coordination of existing databases in view of the 2017 call for proposals. The 2015 call is open to databases that have an infrastructure grant which expires in 2015 or 2016. The grant should be sought for two years.
Utlysningstext:
http://www.vr.se/forskningsfinansiering/sokabidrag/vetenskapsradetsutlysningar/aktuellautlysningar/forskn ingsinfrastrukturbidragdatabaserinomsamhallsvetenskapochmedicinmedfokuspaindividdatadrift.5.5636787 314bdfb2e125bf1c2.html
4.
Coordination Grants for Databases in the social sciences and medicine with a focus on individual based data
The aim of the coordination grant is to promote coordination of existing databases in view of the 2017 call for proposals. The coordination between databases in related fields should enable a more efficient and
accessible structure for Swedish scientists using the databases. The grant should be sought for two years for which the Swedish Research Council will grant a maximum of 1 000 000 SEK. The grant is expected to be followed by a new infrastructure application in 2017.
Utlysningstext:
http://www.vr.se/forskningsfinansiering/sokabidrag/vetenskapsradetsutlysningar/aktuellautlysningar/forskn ingsinfrastrukturbidragdatabaserinomsamhallsvetenskapochmedicinmedfokuspaindividdatasamordning.5.5 636787314bdfb2e125c5b73.html
4. HANDLING PROCEDURE FOR
INFRASTRUCTURE APPLICATIONS 2015
All applications are to be evaluated based on their scientific impact and strategic importance for Swedish research. The review process therefore includes several steps with focus on different aspects of the
applications (Figure 1). The text below contains detailed instructions intended to guide the reviewers in the RFI infrastructure panels to the new handling procedures.
Figure 1. The review process for infrastructure applications 2015. The different types of applications will be reviewed by different panels but following the same time schedule. The continuous purple squares mark the panels involved in review of national infrastructure grants, the dotted green squares mark the panels involved in review of international infrastructure grants and the dotted red squares mark the panels involved in review of database infrastructure grants.
Evaluation by the infrastructure evaluation panels (RFI 1-5)
Main topics for the RFI evaluation panels
The RFI panels are responsible for providing a complete and comprehensive evaluation of the national relevance of the infrastructure, in terms of its impact on Swedish research. The infrastructure panels shall base their evaluation on
1) the reviews and recommendations provided by the scientific councils´ panels (when applicable), 2) the international panel, that have assessed both the scientific impact and the infrastructure aspects
of the applications (when applicable).
The evaluation by the RFI panels shall also acknowledge RFI’s recommendations in the infrastructure guide: https://publikationer.vr.se/produkt/vetenskapsradets-guide-till-infrastrukturen-2014/. The RFI panels may refer to other strategic documents if appropriate.
The infrastructure panels will use all of the criteria in the web-based tool PRISMA, see chapter Evaluation criteria and rating scales below (p 10).
Evaluation of national infrastructure and international infrastructure applications.
The panels should, based on the above, provide an overall assessment, which addresses:
- The national relevance of the infrastructure.
- How important is the infrastructure for Swedish researchers to be able to pursue excellent research in the field(s)?
- How important is the infrastructure for non-academic national users?
- How does the infrastructure compare to similar European/international infrastructures in the field?
o With respect to the research it supports, both nationally and internationally.
o With respect to organization, technical implementation and operation. Is this state of the art?
- Are the proposed activities, and the budget, reasonable compared to similar infrastructures in the field?
- Are there alternatives to a national infrastructure in this field?
- Would it be possible for Vetenskapsrådet to support an international infrastructure instead of a national and this way provide similar services to Swedish researchers?
- Are there strategic aspect that motivates the RFI panel to make a different prioritization than the science council´s panels and/or the international panel? This is a key topic.
- If the full application is not funded, which modules which modules/activities have the highest priority to fund and which are optional? Suggest reductions in modules/activities and the budget as required.
For database operation and database coordination applications.
The panels should, provide an overall assessment, which addresses e.g.:
- The national relevance of the infrastructure.
- How important is the infrastructure for Swedish researchers to be able to pursue excellent research in the field(s)?
- How important is the infrastructure for non-academic national users?
- What is the added value of the coordination (e.g. synergies, scientific benefits etc.)? (not applicable for operation grant)
- Does the activity (e.g. organizational structure) and time plan seem reasonable in relation to the national infrastructure call 2017 requiring only consortium applications? (not applicable for operation grant)
- Are there strategic aspect that motivates the RFI panel to make a different prioritization than the international panel 2? This is a key topic.
Before the infrastructure panel meeting in October
First, the applications will be distributed between the RFI-panels based on which field of science they belong to. One of RFI’s evaluation panels has the primary responsibility for an application, but other RFI panels can co- evaluate an application if it is relevant for their field of expertise as well.
Once the RFI panels have got the applications, each panel shall distribute the applications among the panel members (for handling of conflicts of interest, see below). Each application should normally, according to the Swedish Research Council’s directions, be assessed by at least three members within each panel, but since research infrastructure applications are assessed by both the scientific council’s panels and RFI’s panels the infrastructure applications should be assessed by at least two reviewers in each RFI panel.
One of the assigned reviewers is the proposer, the main evaluator. He/She is responsible for presenting the proposal to the panel at the panel meeting. In PRISMA, each reviewer assesses all of his/her proposals by grading them individually (see Appendix 6. User guide for PRISMA). All of the criteria in PRISMA´s review form shall be used by the RFI panels (see Evaluation criteria and rating scales below). Sometimes external reviewers are engaged as experts; they should both rate the applications and submit a written statement which will serve as a basis for the discussion in RFI’s evaluation panels. By the end of September, the RFI-panels will receive statements from the scientific councils´ panels and from the two international panels. These should serve as a base for the overall evaluation of the scientific and
infrastructure aspects of the applications and be carefully considered by the RFI panels in their evaluations.
Before the meeting all reviewers should have written their individual reviews and ranking in PRISMA and read the reviews by the other members of the group.
During the infrastructure panel meeting
At the panel meeting, the group shall discuss each application and agree on the rating and joint statements for each application. The group’s statement should reflect that the assessments from the scientific councils, the international panels and any external reviewers have been taken into account. It is important that the Overall rating and final comment for the application also considers relevant strategic aspects. In the group’s final statement, which will be sent to the applicant, differences in assessment between the different groups should be commented on, and it should be clearly described which considerations led to the
proposed decision to grant or reject the application. The panel may, if it is considered relevant, propose specific requirements for the application to be granted or suggest budget cuts. The panel should also deliver a ranking of the applications (one ranking list for each type of grant e.g. one list for National
infrastructures) reflecting the priority for funding recommended by the panel. All applications handled by the group should be included in the ranking, including the ones that the panel does not have primary responsibility for. The panel should not rank the applications that should not be funded. The panels are responsible for all applications that are handled by them, and all should be reviewed based on their own qualifications. No application may be given lower priority on the grounds that it doesn’t fall exactly within the groups’ area of expertise.
Any conflict of interest must be reported, and anyone found to have a conflict of interest regarding a particular application cannot be involved in the handling of that application. The person with a conflict of interest must leave the room and the conflict of interest shall be recorded in a special protocol for conflicts of interest. The meeting minutes shall also document situations where a possible conflict of interest was discussed, but found not to exist.
In exceptional cases where one or more of the panel members are strongly linked to a proposed
infrastructure, in addition to following the rules of procedure in the Conflict of interest policy, assessments from at least two external reviewers must be obtained.
If a member of the panel participates in an application or has a close relationship to one of the applicants, the member shall not participate in the handling of applications for the current year. For further
instructions, see Conflict of interest policy, Appendix 2.
This year, members of the scientific councils (ÄR-MH, ÄR-NT, ÄR-HS) have been invited as co- opted members of the RFI panels at the panel meetings in October 2015. They may add information and strategic opinions on behalf of the scientific councils during the discussions but will not participate in the decision making. It is the original panel members who should agree on the panels´ final ratings, statements and ranking lists. During the meeting the RFI panel agrees on a joint statement, sets the grades to all criteria and makes ranking lists based on their own assessment and the discussion at the meeting including any strategic considerations.
After the meeting
Directly after the meeting, the proposer of each application should takes care of filing the group’s final statement and ratings in PRISMA. The chair of the panel must also go through and accept the final statements in PRISMA.
RFI’s joint panel (RFI-SAM) and decision
The priority lists from RFI’s five panels are processed by a joint panel (RFI-SAM), normally constituted by the panel chairs of the individual panels. At its meeting, RFI-SAM discusses their evaluations and compiles a joint ranking of the applications. The joint panel will also determine which final statement each
application should receive, either by choosing an existing statement (usually from the panel with primary responsibility for the application) or by writing a new one clarifying which aspects form the basis for the revised assessment. RFI decides which applications are to be funded at the council meeting in December.
Based on the input from RFI-SAM and from the Scientific Councils and considering strategic aspects that the council have agreed on.
Handling by reviewers outside the RFI panels
Evaluation by the scientific council´s panels
Each application from a national infrastructure or an international infrastructure will be assessed and rated by at least of the scientific councils’ panels. This evaluation should focus on the scientific impact of the application, using the criteria in Part 1 of the review form in the web-based tool PRISMA (Criteria:
Scientific impact, Socio-economic impact, Potential users, Previous results for continuation grants, Merits of the applicants, Ethical considerations, Relevance for call, Consortium, Prioritization between modules, Overall grade and final comment; see chapter Evaluation criteria and rating scales below).
Important aspects in this evaluation are:
- Are Swedish researchers prominent in the scientific field(s) supported by the infrastructure?
- Is the research supported by the infrastructure scientifically excellent? If applicable, the question may be addressed both for national and international researchers.
- How important is the infrastructure for Swedish researchers to be able to pursue excellent research in the field(s)?
- Is the scientific field prioritized by the science council?
The scientific council´s panels will provide written evaluations to be considered by the infrastructure panels when they perform their review.
Evaluation by the international panel 1
Each application from a national infrastructure will be assessed and rated by the international panel 1. This evaluation should focus on the infrastructure aspects such as implementation (i.e. organization, technical, financial, time plan) in comparison to European/international infrastructures. The panel will use the criteria in Parts 1 and 2 of the review form in the web-based tool PRISMA (Criteria Part 1: Scientific impact, Socio-economic impact, Potential users, Previous results for continuation grants, Ethical considerations, Consortium, Prioritization between modules, Overall grade and final comment. Criteria Part 2: National collaborations, International collaborations, Leadership and organization,
Implementation plan, E-infrastructure, Dissemination of results; see chapter Evaluation criteria and rating scales below).
- How does the infrastructure compare to similar European/international infrastructures in the field?
o With respect to the research it supports, both nationally and internationally.
o With respect to organization, technical implementation and operation. Is this state of the art?
- Are the proposed activities, and the budget, reasonable compared to similar infrastructures in the field?
- Are there alternatives to a national infrastructure in this field?
- Would it be possible for Vetenskapsrådet to support an international infrastructure instead of a national and this way provide similar services to Swedish researchers?
- How is the infrastructure positioned in relation to ESFRI, regarding ongoing projects and the ESFRI roadmap? (Note that the updated roadmap may not be available in time for the review process.)
The international panel 1 will provide written evaluations to be considered by the infrastructure panels when they perform their review.
Evaluation by the international panel 2
Applications for the coordination of databases within medicine and social sciences will be reviewed by the international panel 2, which will focus on the possible benefits of the coordination activity, such as:
- What is the added value of the coordination (e.g. synergies, scientific benefits etc.)?
- Is the coordination activity (e.g. organizational structure) and time plan reasonable in relation to the national infrastructure call 2017 requiring only consortium applications?
The panel will use the criteria in Parts 1 and 2 of the review form in the web-based tool PRISMA (Criteria Part 1: Scientific impact, Socio-economic impact, Potential users, Merits of the applicant(s), Previous results for continuation grants, Relevance for call, Dissemination of research results, Leadership and organisation, Ethical considerations, E-infrastructure, Overall grade and final comment. Criteria Part 2: National infrastructure; see chapter Evaluation criteria and rating scales below). The international panel 2 will provide written evaluations to be considered by the infrastructure panels when they perform their review.
The scientific councils (ÄR-MH, ÄR-HS, ÄR-NT)
Representatives from Vetenskapsrådet´s Scientific Councils will be present at the meetings with the infrastructure panels to listen to and participate in the discussion about the applications (see more information under “Evaluation by the infrastructure evaluation panels (RFI 1-5)” above).
The three scientific councils will also be asked to give a written statement each, for the infrastructure applications 2015 in their respective areas of expertise. The statements should comment on the relative strategic importance of each of the infrastructure proposals for Swedish science, and indicate how the applications relate to the councils´ policies.
The scientific council´s written statements will be commented on by the chairs of the infrastructure panels (RFI-SAM) and considered by RFI when they discuss the applications´ strategic importance before their funding decision.
Evaluation by external reviewers
An external reviewer is defined as an individual who reviews grant applications on behalf of an evaluation panel (or other review entity), but who is not an elected member. An external reviewer may be a member of another evaluation panel, or could be someone outside of the Swedish Research Council’s review
organisation.
External reviewers are costly, both in terms of consulting fees and the time used to recruit and support them in the review process. Therefore, external reviewers should be used restrictively. 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 applications to build a basis for comparison. Hence, a panel that reviews 100 applications should not appoint more than 10 external reviewers in addition to those needed to prevent conflicts of interest.
An external reviewer should assess grant applications in basically the same way as the evaluation panel does (and submit written comments and grades). Evaluations submitted by individual reviewers to the Swedish Research Council serve as a basis for the evaluation panel and will not be available after decision is taken. In some cases, it is possible to ask another evaluation panel as a whole to submit advisory opinions, those are considered public documents and will be released upon request.
The evaluation panel, or its chair, can identify situations that require external review and may propose potential reviewers. Normally, the person in charge of the evaluation panel at the Swedish Research Council will contact the proposed external reviewers. External reviewers may not submit grant applications of their own to the evaluation panel they serve, and they must have no conflicts of interest with the
applicants to be assessed.
External review is obligatory when applicants are members of the Swedish Research Council’s decision- making bodies (RFI or the board), where at least two external evaluations are required as a basis for a decision. Other typical cases that involve external reviewers include:
Conflict-of-interest situations within the evaluation panel – the intent here is to confirm that even a completely independent review would yield approximately the same results.
The scientific content of the application is such that the evaluation panel’s collective knowledge is insufficient for a complete review.
The main principle is that the evaluation 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.
Evaluation criteria and rating scales
From 2015 and onwards all infrastructure applications will be assessed by a new set of criteria. The criteria have been designed to cover all the different aspects of the infrastructure applications, i.e. scientific impact, organizational, technical and financial aspects, and to achieve a comprehensive evaluation. The criteria used for infrastructure applications are described in Table 1. Note that not all criteria are used for all types of grants. The international panel and the science council’s review panels will use a reduced set of criteria whereas the RFI panel will use all criteria available in PRISMA.
The scope of the different criteria may vary from narrow criteria to assess a specific aspect of the application (e.g. ethical consideration) to very broad criteria that aim to capture aspects that relate to the full application (i.e. implementation plan). If a criteria is not applicable to a specific application (e.g. ethical considerations may not always be relevant to assess) no grading should be done, and the statement ‘Not applicable’ should be provided as a comment.
Note specifically that the final criteria Overall rating and final comment is supposed to be a summary grade that reflects aspects covered by all the other criteria. It should not be a mean based on the previous criteria. It is important that the Overall rating and final comment includes a comment that clearly describes the considerations that led to the final rating and recommendations for the application. The final statement should be based on the evaluation by the RFI panel as well as the reviews provided by the international panel (if applicable) and the science council’s review panels (not all grant types will be reviewed by all of the above). In assessing the strategic aspects the RFI panels should consider the recommendations in the Infrastructure guide and they may also relate to other appropriate strategic documents1 when appropriate.
The assessment made by the RFI panel may therefore deviate from the reviews from other panels and the arguments for this has to be clearly described in the review comments from the RFI panel. This is especially important in the Overall rating and final comment which is intended as a summary comment including all relevant aspects.
Rating scales
Two rating scales are used in the assessment of infrastructure applications.
The grading based on three steps is specific for evaluation of infrastructure applications, with grades defined as follows:
3=Excellent 2=Sufficient 1=Insufficient
The grading based on seven steps is the Swedish Research Councils standard rating, with grades defined as follows:
7 = Outstanding. Exceptionally strong application with negligible weaknesses.
6 = Excellent. Very strong application with negligible weaknesses
1 E.g. the high-level evaluation report from ESFRI and reports from Vetenskapsrådet
5 = Very good to excellent. Very strong application with minor weaknesses 4 = Very good. Strong application with minor weaknesses
3 = Good. Some strengths, but also moderate weaknesses
2 = Weak. A few strengths, but also at least one major weakness or several minor weaknesses 1 = Poor. Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses
Evaluation criteria
Table 1. Evaluation criteria for infrastructure applications
Criteria (rating scale) Description of criteria Used for the following
grant types Scientific impact (1-7) The criteria is used to evaluate if
If the infrastructure enables world-leading research within its scientific fields (future status)
if Swedish scientists are at the scientific forefront in the scientific fields supported by the
infrastructure (present status)
National, international, databases- operation, databases- coordination.
Socioeconomic impact (1-3) The criteria is used to evaluate if the infrastructure is important for other than academic users, e.g. industry and other
socioeconomic aspects.
National, international, databases- operation, databases- coordination.
Potential users (1-3) The criteria is used to evaluate the size of the user base for the infrastructure, both in terms of present and potential future users.
National, international, databases- operation, databases- coordination.
Consortium (1-3) The criteria is used to evaluate the suitability of the proposed consortia to operate the infrastructure.
National.
Merits of the applicants (1-3) The criteria is used to evaluate whether the participating scientists together have both the scientific edge and the organizational competence to operate an infrastructure.
International, databases- operation, databases- coordination.
Previous results for continuations grants (1-3)
The criteria is used to provide an overall statement about the previous operations and achievements of the infrastructure.
How well does the infrastructure meet the expectations of what could be expected to have been achieved with previous grants(s)? In terms of scientific impact, organization, technical implementation, user base, user support and communication with users.
How well does the infrastructure perform
compared to other similar European/international infrastructures?
National, international, databases- operation.
Dissemination of research results (1-3)
The criteria is used to evaluate the infrastructure’s policy for dissemination of results, i.e. both publications and experimental data.
This is a narrow criteria intended to be provide a short comment.
National, international, databases- operation.
Leadership and organisation (1-3)
The criteria is used to evaluate:
organisational aspects.
leadership of the infrastructure (both scientific/strategic and management)
communication with present and potential future users (outreach).
Is it appropriate? How does the infrastructure compare to to other similar European/international infrastructures?
National, international, databases- operation, databases- coordination.
Implementation plan (1-3) The criteria is used to evaluate the proposed implementation in terms of technical, organizational and financial aspects and
National, international, databases- coordination.
timeline, as well as user support/training, user access and dissemination of results.
Is the proposed implementation appropriate and feasible?
Is the budget reasonable for the proposed implementation of the infrastructure?
Is the scope of the infrastructure and the corresponding budget reasonable compared to similar infrastructures?
Is the budget and timeline reasonable for the proposed implementation?
How does the infrastructure compare to other similar European/international infrastructures?
Both with respect to the research that is supports (nationally and internationally) and with respect to technical, organizational and operational aspects. Is this state of the art?
This is a broad criteria intended to provide a thorough comment. The comments and recommendations may be used later as a basis for the negotiations with the consortium.
International collaborations (1-3)
The criteria is used to evaluate collaboration with international (both in Europe and globally) infrastructures.
Are there advantages for this infrastructure to collaborate internationally?
If applicable, are there alternative international infrastructure available that Swedish users should be encouraged to use instead?
How is the infrastructure positioned with regard to ESFRI and other international initiatives?
National, international
National collaborations (1-3) The criteria is used to evaluate collaborations with national infrastructures.
Are there advantages for this infrastructure to collaborate with other national infrastructures?
Is there a risk for overlapping activities? Define the boundaries between the different
infrastructures in terms of operation and activities.
National, international.
Ethical consideration (1-3) If applicable, the criteria is used to evaluate how ethical concerns and considerations are met in the application.
This is a narrow criteria intended to be provide a short comment.
National, international, databases- operation, databases- coordination.
E-infrastructure (1-3) The criteria is used to evaluate e-infrastructure aspects in the application. This may include network, computation (analysis, simulation, visualization etc), data handling, storage,
development/implementation of software, database solutions, as well as advanced user support related to all of the above.
Will be used by the panel RFI-4 to co-review all applications.
National, international, databases- operation, databases- coordination.
National infrastructure (1-3) The criteria is used to assess to which extent the infrastructure fulfills Vetenskapsrådet’s criteria for infrastructures of national relevance. *
National, international, databases- operation.
Prioritization between modules (text only)
This criteria is used to make a prioritization between different proposed activities/functionalities of the infrastructure, i.e.
between modules and also within modules.
Text only. The comment should include motivation for the prioritization. The comments and recommendations may be used later as a basis for the negotiations with the consortium.
National, international
Relevance for call (1-3) The criteria is used to assess
the relevance of the selection of databases in relation to the call (e.g. concerning scientific discipline).
the aim with the coordination activity and its relevance for the call.
Databases- operation, databases-coordination.
Added value (1-3) The criteria is used to assess
the aim and added value of the coordination.
synergies between different components and databases.
the long-term scientific benefit of the coordination.
Databases coordination
Overall grade and final comment (1-7)
This criteria is used to give a summary statement of the application which acknowledges all important aspects, including:
How important is the infrastructure for Swedish researchers to be able to pursue excellent research?
Is the proposed organization and activities well suited to support Swedish researchers to pursue excellent research?
Is this strategically important for Sweden?
This is a broad criteria intended to provide a thorough comment. The comments and recommendations may be used later as a basis for the negotiations with the consortium.
National, international, databases- operation, databases-coordination.
* Vetenskapsrådet’s definition and criteria for infrastructures of national relevance are:
The Swedish Research Council applies the following definition of the term ‘research infrastructures’:
Research infrastructures constitute necessary tools for conducting research of the highest quality.
Research infrastructures include facilities, instruments, knowledge bases and services, and are intended for use by researchers or research groups within basic or applied research within all research areas.
Research infrastructures can be centralised, distributed or virtual, and the infrastructure is made available based on academic assessment criteria.
To fulfill the criteria for infrastructure of national interest the infrastructure must:
provide the conditions for world class research
be of a broad national interest
be used by several research teams or users with highly advanced research projects
be so extensive that individual teams cannot run them on their own
have a long term plan for scientific goals, funding and utilisation
be open and easily accessible to researchers, industry and other stakeholders
have a plan for accessibility (in terms of using the infrastructure, access to collected data and presentation of results)
in relevant cases, introduce new cutting-edge technology.
5. TIME SCHEDULE RFI 2015
March 26 Call opens
March 25-26 RFI meeting, panel members and delegates to the joint evaluation panel (RFI-SAM) are appointed
May 5 Meeting with the chairs and members to the RFI evaluation panels
May 5 Deadline for applications – Participation in international research infrastructure, Operation grant (prolonged grant for national infrastructure) and Grant for coordination of databases/operation of databases in social sciences and medicine May 10 Distribution of applications to reviewers
May 10 – June 24 Economic pre-review
May 10 (from) Applications to the scientific council’s panels (except operation grant for databases) May 10 Applications to the international panels (Operation grant for National infrastructures
and database applications)
May 25 Deadline for the scientific council’s panels to indicate reviewers on RFI applications May 20-21 RFI meeting (information about received applications)
June 5 Last day to report conflict of interest Sep 9-10 RFI meeting
Aug 25 –Sep 17 The scientific council’s panels meet Sep 8-9 and 10-11 The two international panels meets
Sep 25 Last day for the scientific council’s panels to deliver their reviews on infrastructure applications
Sep 25 Last day for the international panels to deliver their reviews on infrastructure applications
Oct 6-12 RFI’s evaluation panels meet
Oct 14 Deadline for RFI’s evaluation panels to deliver their reviews to RFI-SAM Oct 23 RFI-SAM meets and provides a priority list to the RFI
Oct 22-27 ÄR-meetings. ÄR discussions and ranking of the RFI applications.
Nov 4-5 RFI meeting, discussion on which applications to fund or reject
Dec (date not yet determined) RFI meeting, grant decisions for international infrastructure and grants for databases. Preliminary decisions for national infrastructures.
Nov-Dec Notifications of grant decisions and rejection letters are sent to applicants Dec – March Negotiations with applicants about terms for the national infrastructure grants March XX 2016 RFI-meeting. Final grant decisions for national infrastructures.
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 2014
In 2014, the Swedish Research Council paid SEK 6.4 billion in funding, mostly to basic research in all areas of science. A large part of the research funding went to projects that were proposed by the researchers themselves (researcher-initiated research).
Breakdown of support by groups of support forms in 2014 (total of SEK 6,390 million).
Breakdown of the support form project support in 2014 (total of SEK 2,766 million).
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 815 researchers served as members of review panels in 2014, with 40% 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.
APPENDIX 2: CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF THE SWEDISH RESEARCH COUNCIL NR 2, 2014 APPENDIX 1
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 Procedure 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.
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
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.
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,
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.
APPENDIX 3. STRATEGY FOR GENDER EQUALITY AT THE SWEDISH RESEARCH COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF THE SWEDISH RESEARCH COUNCIL NR 4, 2013 APPENDIX 1
Strategy for Gender Equality at the Swedish Research Council
Decision 2013-06-13
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 rates2 and receive the same average size of grants, taking into account the nature of the research and the type of grant.3
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).4 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.
2 Success rates for women and men refer to the percentage of applications approved among total applications received from women and men respectively.
3 Attainment of the goal must be assessed in the context of a sufficiently large number of decisions.
4 These 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
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 gainedtowards 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).
According to the Swedish Research Council Instructions Ordinance (2009:975) Chapter 1 Section14, the Swedish Research Council must promote equality between women and men within its sphere of activity. In accordance with the requirements established by the Government in the Appropriation Directions, 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.
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 rates5 and receive the same average size of grants, taking into account the nature of the research and the type of grant.”6 (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 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.
5 See footnote 1.
APPENDIX 4. ETHICS PRINCIPLES: APPROVALS, AND GOOD RESEARCH PRACTICE
The administrative entity7 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.
7 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.
