DOC Selection

Selection procedure

The fellowship committee comprises scholars and scientists employed at a university or a non-university research institution in Austria. The committee is reconstituted every year.

The applications are assigned to the members of the fellowship committee according to their fields. Great attention is paid to avoiding potential conflicts of interest. Hence committee members and applicants may not work at the same university or research institute. Furthermore, professional or private relations or rivalry are also taken into consideration.

Preliminary selection

In the first selection round, a shortlist of applications will be drawn up that will be evaluated by international experts. This preliminary selection is made on the basis of the scientific quality of the dissertation project and/or the qualification of the applicant. An explanatory statement giving the reasons for the rejection is sent to the applicant.

For the applications that are to be externally assessed, the members of the committee suggest reviewers abroad who seem suitable in the relevant fields. In addition, experts from the database of the Department of Fellowships and Awards can be named. Again, bias and potential conflicts of interest are taken into consideration.

There is no set pool of reviewers; for each application experts are sought who are in a position to judge the application on the basis of their own academic experience or research activities in accordance with the international standards in the field in question. These experts work on a voluntary basis, i.e. they do not receive any financial compensation for this activity.

Applicants have the right to exclude up to three experts from the review process (e.g. due to rivalry or to dispute between schools).

Review process

At least one reviewer is enlisted for each application in the framework of the DOC program. In the case of interdisciplinary applications embracing several fields of research this number can be increased.

A review consists of a written assessment and a formal evaluation of the academic quality of the research project on a scale from 1–10 (1–2 = inadequate, 9–10 = outstanding):

• Originality and innovative aspects of the research project as well as relevance of the project to the research field
• Knowledge of the current state of research
• Clarity of the research questions (hypotheses)
• Appropriateness of the methodology (including work plan and timetable)
• Feasibility of the project (institute’s facilities, academic environment)

Finally, the reviewers are requested to provide a summary stating whether they recommend that the application be funded (with priority) or should be rejected.

If the written statement does not seem particularly meaningful, another review is sought. The reviewers are requested to state potential conflicts of interest. If conflict of interest is established retrospectively, the review is not taken into consideration.

When a revised application has been resubmitted, at least one of the previous reviewers will usually be asked again for an assessment. The prerequisite for resubmission is that the application is marked as a second application and the presentation of the project progress since the first submission and the changes that were made on the basis of the criticism or suggestions in the review.

Decision of the fellowship committee

The decision on awarding the fellowships is made in the spring (May/June) of the year following the submission deadline.
Due to the large number of applications, related disciplines are grouped together in panels; approximately 30-50 applications per panel are discussed comparatively.

Based on the reviews, the committee members draw up a ranking of the applications assigned to them; the assessment is done on the basis of the reviews and the scientific qualifications of the applicants using one of the following categories:

• A      funding is recommended with priority, i.e. rated as excellent without reservation in all aspects
• B    funding is recommended, if sufficient funds are available, i.e. clearly worthy of funding, but points of criticism were formulated in the reviews and/or the applicant's academic qualifications   were not rated as unreservedly excellent
• C      funding of the application in its current form is not recommended

The applications are discussed comparatively in the panel meeting: The reviews, but also other criteria relating to the applicant's academic qualifications - such as the course and duration of studies, publication list, mobility, and the length of the doctorate/PhD studies to date - are discussed in detail.

The decision to award the fellowships is made by the entire panel.

It should be noted that due to financial considerations applications have to be rejected despite positive evaluation.

Applicants do not have recourse to legal action.

Selection Criteria

• Quality of the dissertation project
  >> originality/innovativeness, scientific methods, focus, feasibility of the project, chances of success in the requested funding period, extent of independent contribution
• Quality of the academic environment and dissertation supervision
• Evaluation of any points of criticism in the review
• Scientific career and previous scientific achievements of the applicant
  >> competitive course of study, publication list, mobility, additional commitment (teaching, conference organization, etc.)
  >> if applicable, exceptional CV
• Future potential of the applicant
  >> scientific potential, career perspectives

Information for applicants

After the committee meeting, all applicants will be informed by e-mail.
The reviewers’ written statements will be anonymised and forwarded to the applicants.