We use a scale of marks when processing grant applications. Panels comprised of referees assess applications. Here you will find the assessment criteria and the scale of marks used in the assessment of the applications.
In connection with the new application system, we are switching to a new scale of marks. In a transition period with calls for proposals in both the old and new systems, we will therefore use two different scales of marks. The scale of marks we use for each call will be clearly described in the call text.
Go directly to
Common assessment criteria
The Research Council is standardising the criteria on which applications are assessed. The criteria are Excellence, Impact and Implementation, and are used throughout all calls.
The scale of marks will be brought closer to the 0–5 scale used in Horizon Europe’s Pillar 2. However, we are making certain adjustments in how the marks are to be operationalised compared to the EU. The purpose of this change is to gain a more uniform understanding of the scale of marks.
The panels will assess grant applications according to these three criteria:
- Excellence
The panels assess the application on - originality/novelty of the research and innovation
- solidity/robustness
- Impact
The panels assess the application on - its potential for impact on research, society and trade and industry
- plans for disseminating knowledge and for implementing research results
- Implementation
The panels assess the application on - project manager and project team
- plans for carrying out and organising the project
Scale of marks: all assessment criteria in the new application system (My page)
Below you will find the scale of marks we use in the new system.
The new scale is adapted to the EU system and has six marks (0–5):
The new marks are defined as follows:
| Mark | Defining characteristics |
| 5 | The proposal addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in an excellent manner. Compared with relevant work, it is among the top 15%. |
| 4 | The proposal addresses the criterion very well. Compared with relevant work, it is among the top 16–30%. |
| 3 | The proposal addresses the criterion well. There are some shortcomings, but they do not significantly impede the success of the proposed project. |
| 2 | The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are weaknesses that could significantly impede the success of the proposed project. |
| 1 | The criterion is inadequately addressed. |
| 0 | The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information. |
The grade 0 corresponds to grade 1 in the scale of marks in the old system.
Scale of marks: all assessment criteria in the old application system (My RCN Web)
Below you will find the scale of marks used by experts and the administration:
| Mark | Defining characteristics |
| 7 | Exceptional The proposal addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion exceptionally well. Shortcomings are not present, or only very minor. |
| 6 | Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion. Only minor shortcomings are present. |
| 5 | Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well. A small number of shortcomings are present. |
| 4 | Good The proposal addresses the criterion well. A number of shortcomings are present. |
| 3 | Fair The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are a number of significant weaknesses. |
| 2 | Weak The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses. |
| 1 | Poor The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information. |