Funding decisions

The Reporter responsible for the application presents it to the Board, together with a summary of the reviews received as well as any comments received from the Alternate(s). This process is also subject to the rules regarding conflicts of interest specified under Submission above, even in cases where a conflict of interest might be assumed or perceived. In most cases, decisions are made unanimously, often after a detailed discussion and comparison of the applications submitted. In the course of the discussion, bonuses for early-stage applicants (up to 8 years after conferral of doctorate) and/or independent applicants (minimum: 50%) may be applied.

After the FWF Board meeting, the decision letters are prepared by the FWF Office and dispatched to the applicants. Depending on the outcome of the decision-making procedure, the letter may be accompanied by excerpts from the reviews (in anonymous form).

For each rejection, the FWF Board or the jury/board responsible specifies one of the following standardised reasons for rejection in order to ensure a maximum of transparency and comparability in all decisions.

Standardised reasons for rejection
C1The reviews of your application were entirely positive with regard to the research project itself as well as your research qualifications. However, the reviewers expressed even greater support for other applications. For budget-related reasons, the FWF can currently only approve those applications which receive the most favourable reviews and ratings; this means that your application could not be approved. If you choose to resubmit your application, please place greater emphasis on the strengths of the project in order to improve your chances of approval.
C2The reviews of your application were predominantly positive with regard to the research project itself as well as your research qualifications. However, there were several minor points of criticism in the review, and the reviewers expressed greater support for other applications. For budget-related reasons, the FWF can currently only approve those applications which receive the most favourable reviews and ratings; this means that your application could not be approved. If you choose to resubmit your application, please place greater emphasis on the strengths of the project and take the reviewers' suggestions into account in order to improve your chances of approval.
C3The reviews of your application were largely positive with regard to the research project itself and/or your research qualifications. However, there were a number of points of criticism in the review, meaning that your application cannot be approved in its current form. If you choose to resubmit your application, please focus on the strengths of the project and take the reviewers' comments and suggestions into account visibly and in a transparent manner.
C4The reviews of your application were only partly positive with regard to the research project itself and/or your research qualifications. However, there were numerous points of criticism in the review, meaning that the project would have to be revised substantially and possibly re-oriented in order to be eligible for funding. If you choose to resubmit your application, please take the reviewers' comments and suggestions into account visibly and in a transparent manner.
C5The reviews of your application were predominantly very critical. As it cannot be assumed that the weaknesses in the application can be remedied within a short period of time, the FWF Board has decided that a resubmission to this funding programme will only be permitted after a period of 12 months.

The FWF Office provides administrative support for Reporters, Alternates and FWF Vice-Presidents in the performance of their duties. In all project-related matters, the FWF Office serves as the direct point of contact for applicants.