Reasons for rejecting grant applications

The portfolio boards’ decisions are based on an assessment of all the applications as a whole to achieve the best possible composition of projects. The assessment criteria are described in each individual call for proposals.

Grant applications that are awarded a low mark by the panel will not be assessed for funding

Applications with marks below a certain limit (which may be set at for example 4 or 5) are assessed as not being qualified to receive funding from us within the topic in question. We have based the rejection on the panel’s assessment. The application’s relevance, i.e. how relevant the application is in relation to the topic you have chosen to apply under, has in this instance not been assessed by the administration or portfolio board, since the application is below the limit set for quality.

Grant applications that are not assessed for relevance

Applications under the topic Ground-breaking Research (FRIPRO) will not be assessed for relevance, even if they receive very good assessments from the panel. Information on reasons for rejecting such applications follows below.

Applications that are given a mark of 7 for between one and all criteria and 6 for the others

Although the panel has assessed your application as exceptional, the portfolio board has prioritised the applications as described in the text of the call and within the budget set out in the call. The budget framework for this topic in this call was unfortunately too small for us to be able to award funding to all applications assessed as exceptional.

Applications with a mark of 6 for all criteria

Many of the applications have been assessed as being better than applications with a mark of 6. Although the application is excellent and is of a quality that qualifies for funding, the budget framework for this topic in this call is unfortunately too small for us to be able to award funding to your project. 

Grant applications that are assessed for relevance

Applications under other topics will be assessed for relevance if they receive very good assessments from the panel. Information on reasons for rejecting such applications follows below.

Applications with a mark of 7 for all criteria or a mark of 7 for one or two criteria and 6 for the others and/or an overall mark of 6 or 7, assessed for relevance as 6 or 5

The budget framework for this topic in this call was unfortunately too small for us to be able to award funding to all applications assessed as exceptional. The portfolio board prioritised projects that, together, cover the purpose and priorities set out in the call, and that give a balanced and broad composition of projects within the budget framework set out in the call when it comes to topic and subject field.

Applications with a mark of 6 for all criteria and/or an overall mark of 6, assessed for relevance as 7

Even applications assessed as being of excellent quality and whose relevance to the topic of the call is assessed as exceptional, did not make it through in the final decision on which projects are to receive funding. The budget framework for this topic in this call was unfortunately too small for us to be able to award funding to all the applications assessed as excellent. There were several projects under this topic of high quality and relevance, and the portfolio board has decided to award funding to projects that the experts have assessed as exceptional.

Applications with a mark of 6 for all criteria and/or an overall mark of 6, assessed for relevance as 5 or 6

Even applications assessed as being of excellent quality did not make it through in the final decision on which projects are to receive funding. The portfolio board prioritised projects that, together, cover the purpose and priorities set out in the call, and that give a balanced and broad composition of projects when it comes to topic and subject field.

Applications with a mark of 6 and/or an overall mark of 6, assessed for relevance as 4 or lower

Even applications assessed as being of excellent quality did not make it through in the final decision on which projects are to receive funding. This is because there were other applications that were more relevant with respect to the priorities for this topic in this call.

Applications with a mark of 5 for all criteria and/or an overall mark of 5, assessed for relevance as 7

Even applications assessed as being of very high quality did not make it through in the final decision on which projects are to receive funding. Your application was assessed as being of very high quality that may qualify for funding, and the application is also assessed as exceptionally relevant to the composition of projects in the portfolio. The budget framework for this topic in this call was unfortunately too small for us to be able to award funding to all the very good applications. The portfolio board prioritised projects that together cover the purpose and priorities of the call, and where the referees have assessed the application as excellent in at least one of the criteria. 

Applications with a mark of 5 for all criteria and/or an overall mark of 5, assessed for relevance as 5 or lower

Even applications assessed as being of very high quality did not make it through in the final decision on which projects are to receive funding. The budget framework for this topic in this call was unfortunately too small for us to be able to award funding to all applications of very good quality. The portfolio board prioritised projects that together cover the purpose and priorities of the call, and where the referees have assessed the application as excellent in at least one of the criteria.