In the first selection round, the committee members draw up a shortlist of applications that will be reviewed by international experts. This selection is made on the basis of the scientific quality of the dissertation project and/or the scientific qualification of the applicant, which will be communicated to the applicant in writing in the event of rejection.

For the applications that are reviewed by international experts, the committee members propose suitable reviewers who work abroad. In addition, experts from the database of the Department of Fellowships & Awards of the OeAW can be named. In the selection process, strict attention is paid to reasons for bias or possible conflicts of interest.

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

Applicants have the right (e.g. for reasons of competition or because of a school dispute) to exclude up to three experts from the review process.

For each application for the DOC program, at least one review of the dissertation project is obtained. In the case of interdisciplinary proposals that cover several research areas, the number can be increased.

A review consists of a written statement and a formal assessment of the scientific quality of the dissertation project on a scale of 1-10 (1-2 = inadequate, 9-10 = excellent) based on the following criteria:

• Originality, innovativeness and relevance of the dissertation project in the field
• Knowledge of the current state of research
• Clarity of research questions, appropriateness of the methodology
• Work plan and schedule

Finally, the reviewers are asked to make a summary recommendation as to whether the dissertation project 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 taken into consideration.

When a revised application has been resubmitted, the reviewer of the first application is usually asked again for an assessment. In particular, reference is made to the progress of the project since the first submission and the changes made on the basis of the criticism or suggestions in the report. If the reviewer of the initial application is not available for a new assessment, other experts will be asked for their opinion.

The decision on awarding the fellowships will be made in June/July of the year following the submission deadline.
Due to the large number of applications, related disciplines will be grouped together in panels; per panel, about 30-50 applications are discussed comparatively.

Based on the reviews, the committee members draw up a ranking of the applications assigned to them; the applications are assessed on the basis of the reviews of the dissertation project and the scientific qualifications of the applicants and 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 have been formulated in the review and/or the applicant's academic qualification is not assessed as unreservedly excellent

C           funding of the application in its current form is not recommended
i.e. points of criticism were formulated in the review and the dissertation project was rejected as not eligible for funding in its present form

In the panel meeting, the applications will be discussed comparatively; the reviews, but also other criteria relating to the applicants' scientific qualifications, are discussed in detail.

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

It should be noted that due to budgetary conditions, applications must be rejected despite a positive evaluation.

Legal recourse is excluded.

Information to applicants

After the committee meeting, all applicants will be informed by e-mail; the written statements of the reviewers are transmitted in anonymised form.

Dissertation project

• Originality, innovativeness and relevance of the dissertation project in the field
• Knowledge of the current state of research
• Clarity of research questions, appropriateness of the methodology
• Work plan and schedule

Scientific qualification of the applicant

• course of study and grades; awards, scholarships, etc. already received
• Publication output
• Scientific Mobility
• Scientific engagement, outreach activities