Funding decisions

The reporters responsible for the application present it to the FWF Board, taking into consideration the comment(s) of the respective alternates, the respective proposals and the key points of the reviews received. This process is also subject to the rules regarding conflicts of interest specified above in the “Submission” section, even in cases where the mere impression of a conflict of interest could arise. In most cases, decisions are made unanimously and (where necessary) often after a detailed discussion and comparison of the proposals submitted. In the course of this discussion, bonuses for early-stage applicants (up to 8 years after conferral of doctorate) and/or independent researchers (at least 50%) may be offered.

After the FWF Board meeting, the decision letters are prepared by the FWF Office and sent to the applicants. The letter will be accompanied by the first section from the reviews in anonymous form.

For each rejection, the FWF Board or the responsible decision-making body 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 budgetary 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 reviewers 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 reviews, and the reviewers expressed greater support for other applications. For budgetary 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 consideration 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 reviews, meaning that your application could not be approved in its current form. If you choose to resubmit your application, please focus more on defining the strengths of the project and take the reviewers’ comments and suggestions into consideration in a clear and visible way.
C4The reviews of your application were only partly positive with regard to the research project and/or your research qualifications. However, there were numerous points of criticism in the review, meaning that the application would have to be revised substantially and possibly refocused in order to be eligible for funding. If you choose to re-submit your application, please take the reviewers’ suggestions and points of criticism into consideration in a clear and visible way.
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 starting from the decision date.

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.