Kaikkien apurahahakemusten (pois lukien matka- ja koulutusapurahat) arviointi pohjautuu Suomen Akatemian toteuttamaan arviointiin. Seuraavassa kuvaus arvioinnista.

In the review of applications, particular attention will be paid to overall scientific quality of the research plan. The final reviews will be sent to all applicants to support advancement of research careers and to encourage further applications. Similarly, to support the learning trajectories of young researchers, the structure and contents of the evaluation form follows the general categories used in the funding call of the Academy of Finland, which is a highly prestigious and competitive form of funding in Finland. In case of project applications, evaluation of the competence of the applicant for category 4 will focus on the principal investigator (PI), and for categories 5 and 6 on the research team as a whole.

The numerical evaluation is made with the scale of 1 (poor) to 6 (outstanding).

1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = very good, 5 = excellent, 6 = outstanding


1 Scientific quality and innovativeness of research plan (Evaluation scale: 1–6):

Guiding questions: How significant is the project scientifically? Are the objectives and hypotheses appropriately presented? To what extent are the objectives ambitious and beyond the state of the art (e.g. novel concepts and approaches or development across disciplines)? How high is the potential for breakthroughs or exceptionally significant outcomes?

2 Implementation of research plan (Evaluation scale: 1–6):

Guiding questions: Is the research plan feasible (bearing in mind the extent to which the proposed research may include high risks)? Are the research methods and materials appropriate? Are the human resources and management of the proposed plan appropriate and well planned? Does the research environment support the project, including appropriate research infrastructures? How well does the applicant acknowledge potential scientific or methodological problem areas, and how does the applicant consider alternative approaches?

3 Responsible science (no numerical rating)

Guiding questions: Are there any ethical issues involved and, if so, how are they taken into account? What is the intended level of open access to research results? Does the data management plan responsibly support the reuse of research data? How does the project promote equality and non-discrimination within itself or in society at large?


4 Competence and expertise of applicant (Evaluation scale: 1–6):

Guiding questions: What are the personal merits and scientific expertise of the applicant? Are they appropriate and sufficient for the proposed project? Does the research plan advance the applicant’s professional competence and independence?

5 Research team, significance of research collaborations (Evaluation scale: 1–6):

Guiding questions: Does the research team bring complementary expertise to the project? How does the national and/or international research collaboration contribute to the success of the project?

6 Researcher mobility (Evaluation scale: 1–6):

Guiding questions: How does the planned mobility support the research plan? Does the receiving organisation stand out in the respective field of research? Is the length of the mobility period appropriate and is its timing right for the project?


7 Main strengths and weaknesses of project, additional comments and suggestions (no numerical rating)

Please give an overall assessment for the application including lists of strengths and weaknesses as well as any additional comments.




D. Final rating

Final rating (1–6):

Please note that the final rating should not be a mathematical average of the sub-ratings.