How are applications processed, and when will I receive a result?

Preliminary assessment

First, the Research Council administration checks whether the grant application meets all the formal requirements set out in the call. If your application does not meet the requirements, we will ask you to withdraw the application and possibly submit it again with the necessary changes. If you do not withdraw the application, we will reject it, and you as project manager will receive a one year waiting period before you may submit your application again.  

Peer review

Grant applications are sent to peer reviewers who will carry out a scientific assessment of the applications based on the assessment criteria set out in the call. All grant applications must be assessed by at least three peer reviewers. For (Three-Year) Researcher Project with International Mobility, Researcher Project for Early Career Scientists, Researcher Project for Experienced Scientists and Top Researchers, the peer reviewers discuss the application in a digital panel meeting to agree on a unified assessment and marks. For Radical Research Ideas, each reviewer submits their assessment and mark, without any meeting or discussion. Continue reading for details on the peer review process. 

How do we find peer reviewers?

The Research Council has established a database of peer reviewers who have agreed to participate in peer review of FRIPRO applications, in order to more efficiently put together reviewers with appropriate expertise to assess the applications received. This means that we find peer reviewers regardless of when the applications are submitted and supplement them as needed. Peer reviewers commit for several years at a time, and generally we use the same peer reviewer for a maximum of three years.

We have the following general requirements for the peer reviewers we use:

• They must have their workplace abroad.
• They must be active researchers with a significant production, both in terms of quality and quantity.
• They should have professorial qualifications. The minimum requirement is associate professor qualifications or equivalent.

All submitted applications are compared with the competence of the peers in the database based on the content of the application using artificial intelligence (AI). Case officers then assess whether the AI-proposed peer reviewers are suitable for assessing each individual application.

We supplement the database as needed with searches in, for example, Web of Science, Google Scholar and well-known foreign universities within the various fields of study. The list of sources varies from field to field. We also consider the applicant's own proposals for suitable peers or a description of suitable competence.

Impartiality

Peer reviewers assess their impartiality for the applications we want them to evaluate. We ask them to pay particular attention to the points in the impartiality provisions concerning cooperation, friendship and conflict. Peer reviewers will not have access to applications for which they are disqualified and will not participate in discussions of such applications.

Competence

Peer reviewers assess their level of competence based on title, objectives and summary of the applications. It is therefore very important that you write these texts so that the reviewers can state their level of competence as precisely as possible. Before peers receive this information, they must consent to our confidentiality agreement. Peer reviewers can choose one of three levels of competence in each application:

• Specialist (S): The proposal is within your primary area(s) of expertise or connected to your research interests. You are well qualified to evaluate the proposal.
• Generalist (G): You have a general knowledge of the main subject of the proposal (or at least one of the main subjects if there are several). You are qualified to evaluate the proposal.
• Minor (M): You have only minor relevant expertise on the main subject(s) of the proposal.

Write your application so that it can be understood by peers with general expertise in the research field.

The Research Council's competence requirement is that at least two of the referees assessing the grant application must have generalist or specialist expertise in the grant application. If an application is assessed by only three reviewers, all of them must have generalist or specialist expertise for the application in question. Applications for Radical Research Ideas are always assessed by exactly three reviewers. 

Information for peer reviewers

Peer reviewers receive our general guidelines for application processing in FRIPRO. The assessment criteria are elaborated, together with a definition of the scales marks. Among other things, we emphasise the importance of consistent grading and the quality of feedback to applicants.

Application assessment of Mobility Grants, Early Career Scientists, Experienced Scientists and Top Researchers

The panel members read and assess the grant application, and each submit their own preliminary assessment before the panel meets digitally to discuss the grant application. At the meeting, they discuss the application and arrive at a consensus-based assessment with marks.

Each peer reviewer may participate in one or several panel meetings in one day, together with the same or different peers. How many depends on the number of applications that have been received around the same time that are likely to be assessed by the same peers.

Research Council employees participate in the meetings, but not in the scientific discussion. We have a guiding role and contribute to a common understanding of the assessment criteria and the grading scale. We ensure that every panel member has their say, handle disqualification in line with the rules and stop discussions on matters that are outside the panel's mandate. We check that the assessment texts are in accordance with the panel's decision and meet our quality requirements.

Application assessment of Radical Research Ideas

The reviewers read and assess the application separately, and submit their assessments and marks on a scare of A–C. Each reviewer does not have any information on who the other reviewers are. They may assess one or several applications at the same time. They may assess only applications for Radical Research Ideas, or applications for other calls as well. How many depends on the number of applications that have been received around the same time that are likely to be assessed by the same peers.

The combination of the three A-B-C marks determines whether the application is qualified to be considered for funding or not. We always disregard the lowest mark. The remaining two marks must be either A-A or A-B for the application to be qualified. Read more about this in the call.

Decision

The portfolio board for ground-breaking research makes decisions on grants and rejections approximately every other month. Which applications are awarded funding depends on the available budget and a set of rules for prioritising grant applications for funding. 

The budget for each decision round corresponds to the proportion of funding rounds that year (normally six) and is thus independent of the number of applications that are ready for decision. This means that FRIPRO's annual budget will not be spent early in the year, even if there are many applications under consideration at that time. Applications will be granted funding until the budget allocated for the decision round has been exhausted, in accordance with the rules for prioritising applications for allocation.  

The rules are determined by the portfolio board and are intended to contribute to achieving the objectives and the priorities described in the calls for proposals, as well as ensuring equal treatment. The administration (Research Council employees) submits lists to the portfolio board indicating which applications are to be granted and rejected in accordance with the rules. 

The portfolio board checks that the rules have been followed and makes the final decisions.  

The detailed decision rules are described in the document FRIPRO – Granting Principles 2.0 (pdf that opens in a new window), which applies from 1 December 2025. For applications decided up to and including November 2025, the first version of the rules was used: FRIPRO Granting Principles 1.0 (pdf that opens in a new window). 

How we select applications for funding 

Applications for international mobility, early career scientists, experienced scientists, and top researchers receive four marks on a scale from 1 to 7, where 7 is best. Only applications with marks of 6 or 7 in all four criteria are eligible to be considered for funding. Applications for radical research ideas receive three marks on an A–B–C scale, where A is best. The two best marks must be either A–A or A–B for the application to be eligible for funding consideration. All applications below the qualification threshold are rejected. 

Qualified applications compete for funding in up to three decision rounds, according to detailed rules. If your application is qualified but not granted funding in the first decision round it participates in, it gets another chance in the next round. If it is not granted then either, it enters a third and final round. Applications included in their second or third round compete on an equal footing with those in their first round. This method will help to even out any random or systemic differences in the quality or number of applications under consideration at different times of the year, ensuring that the quality of awarded applications is as equal as possible, regardless of when they were submitted. 

Granting principles for Mobility Grants, Early Career Scientists and Experienced Scientists 

The granting principles combine marks, the gender of the project manager and equalisation mechanisms for research domains and the three calls:   

1. Up to 75 per cent of the available budget is allocated to applications based on marks. 
2. At least one application for each of the three calls must be approved in each round. 
3. The remaining budget for the decision round is allocated one application at a time using marks, balancing mechanisms to ensure an appropriate balance between research domains, peer review panels, applications for the three calls, and the project manager's gender, as well as random selection. 

Granting principles for Top Researchers 

1. At least one application in each research domain must be awarded funding over four allocation rounds. 
2. The remaining budget for the decision round is allocated one application at a time using marks, balancing mechanisms to ensure an appropriate balance between research domains, peer review panels, and the project manager's gender, as well as random selection.

Granting principles for Radical Research Ideas 

1. Up to 50 per cent of the available budget is allocated to applications based on marks. 
2. At least one application in each research domain must be approved over three decision rounds. 
3. The remaining budget for the decision round is allocated one application at a time using marks, the project manager's gender, and random selection. 

Feedback to applicants

We provide information in our calls for proposals and in the newsletter about which applications have been awarded funding and statistics on applications.

Each applicant will receive a letter of decision on "My RCN web" when the portfolio board has made a decision for the application. The letter includes feedback in the form of marks with written justifications for the criteria against which the reviewers has assessed the application.

Applicants whose applications are rejected will receive a letter of rejection, while applicants whose applications have been granted will receive a letter of funding. The letter of funding contains requirements for changes and updates that must be made before the Research Council and the Project Owner (the applicant institution) can enter into a contract.

The decision letter also includes a panel meeting or peer reviewer number relating to which peer reviewers were involved in assessing your application. You will find information on which peer reviewers participated in the review process on the page Referees and referee panels, under the heading Researcher Projects for FRIPRO/groundbreaking research. Find the meeting/reviewer number in the list to see which reviewers participated in the assessment.

Please not that several applications may have been assessed in the same panel meeting as your application. If that is the case, the list of peer reviewers in that meeting may include reviewers who did not assess your application, for instance if they had a conflict of interest. If, in your opinion, a reviewer listed in the meeting where your application was assessed, was not impartial to assess it, you may contact us for more information.

If you do not receive such a letter within a few weeks after we announce the results from a decision round, there are two alternatives: either the peer review of your application was not ready in time for the decision round, or your application was qualified for funding, but the available budget was not sufficient to approve it. If the latter is the case, your application will compete for funding in the next decision round, and you will be notified by e-mail.

Complaint against a decision

The Research Council's decisions are exempt from the Public Administration Act's rules on the right of complaint, but we have nevertheless introduced a complaint mechanism that gives you a limited opportunity to submit a complaint. You can only complain about procedural errors or shortcomings in the manner in which the Research Council has exercised its discretion. You cannot appeal against the professional assessments or priorities made by the peers or the portfolio board.

Examples of valid grounds for complaint

• If you believe that a peer reviewer, portfolio board member or Research Council employee who has processed your application is disqualified, or if; 
• The panel writes that specific information was missing from the application that was included (for example, the CV of a project participant).

Examples of invalid reasons for complaint

• The panel has deducted points for something in the application because you disagree academically. This is subject to professional discretion.
• The peers are not specialists in the field(s) covered by the application. We only require generalist competence to assess applications.
• The panel believes that something is not sufficiently described even if you believe that it is. This is subject to professional discretion.

You can find more information about our procedures on this site: Complaints against decisions.