We use assessment criteria and 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 use standardised criteria on application assessments: Excellence, Impact and Implementation.
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
For each call individually: Assessment points and the purpose of the call
The evaluators must assess the application in relation to the purpose of the call. Therefore, each of the assessment criteria (above) has assessment points that are specific to the individual call. They must say something about how the assessment criterion is to be understood.
The assessment criteria and associated assessment points are reproduced under "Assessment" in our calls.
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 top two marks (4 and 5) are defined by placing the application in one percentile: among the top 15% or among the top 16–30% compared to relevant work.
The evaluators must compare the application with other relevant work within their area of expertise. They can not compare the application with other applications for the same call. The evaluators must assess whether the application is among the top 15 % or among the top 16–30 % within their area of expertise.
The choice of mark 4 or 5 shall not be determined by how many or how serious deficiencies the evaluators find. We want to fund the applications with the greatest potential. An assessment that is largely about looking for deficiencies may make it more difficult for particularly innovative and ambitious applications to succeed in the competition.
Marks 0–3 are used when the application has such significant deficiencies that it does not belong among the top 30%. When the evaluators use these grades, they must describe how many deficiencies the application has and how serious they are in the grounds for the mark.
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. |