APART-MINT Selection

Selection process

The selection process takes about 3-4 months.

The fellowship committee consists of scientists who work at a university or a non-university research institution in Austria or abroad. The committee members are nominated by the OeAW.

In the first selection round, the committee members draw up a shortlist of applications that will be reviewed internationally. For each application that is included in the shortlist, at least one expert opinion is obtained. In the case of interdisciplinary proposals that cover several research areas, the number can be increased.

There is no fixed pool of reviewers; for each application, experts are sought who are in a position to judge the application on the basis of their own scientific experience or research activities in accordance with the international standards in the respective field. Just like the members of the fellowship committee, these reviewers work on a voluntary basis, i.e. they do not receive any financial compensation.

An expert opinion consists of a written statement and a formal assessment of the scientific quality of the project on a scale of 1-5 (1 = inadequate, 5 = excellent). The following criteria are taken into account:

• Originality, innovativeness of the project idea
• Potential of the project to further develop the research area or to introduce new aspects
• Reception of the current state of research
• Clarity of the research questions (hypotheses) and appropriateness of the methodology

Finally, the reviewers are asked to make a summary recommendation as to whether the application should be funded (with priority) or should be rejected in its present form.

If the written statement is not conclusive, a further expert opinion will be obtained. The reviewers are asked to disclose possible reasons for bias. If bias is found retrospectively, the expert report will not be evaluated.

In preparation for the committee meeting, the committee members prepare a reasoned ranking of the applications assigned to them; the applications are assessed on the basis of the reviews and the scientific qualifications of the applicants and assigned to one of the following categories:

A = funding is recommended with priority, i.e. rated unrestrictedly excellent in all aspects

B = funding is recommended if sufficient funds are available, i.e. clearly worthy of funding, but points of criticism have been formulated in the reviews and/or the scientific qualification of the applicant is not assessed as unreservedly excellent

C = not recommended for funding in its present form

In the committee meeting, the applications are discussed comparatively; the reviews, but also other criteria relating to the applicant's scientific qualifications, are discussed in detail.

The decision on the awarding of the fellowships is made by the entire committee.

After completion of the selection process, the reviews will be forwarded to all applicants in anonymised form.

It is pointed out that due to budgetary conditions, applications must be rejected despite a positive evaluation.

Applicants do not have recourse to legal action.