Final Report Survey: From Application to Final Reporting – Feedback to the FWF

In the final scientific reports, the FWF asks the project leaders for feedback on their cooperation with the FWF during the various project phases. 

This feedback covers four main categories and 13 subcategories:

  • Application guidelines: Length – Clarity – Intelligibility
  • Decision-making process: Advice & Support – Duration – Transparency
  • Project support: Availability – Level of detail – Intelligibility – Financial transactions
  • Reporting: Effort – Transparency – Support in PR & exploitation


The evaluation is based on the following scale: 2 (very satisfactory), 1 (satisfactory), 0 (appropriate), -1 (unsatisfactory), -2 (very unsatisfactory).

For the period from 2008 to 2017, the average results of the longitudinal evaluation according to the four main categories are as follows:

Average of the scores of the various categories and submission years

With an average score of 1.6, the FWF Office's project support is the best-rated project phase.
Reporting and the decision-making process were seen more critically, with an average of 1.0 and 1.1 respectively.
With regard to the subcategories, the duration of the procedure was rated the worst at 0.8.

For the period 2008-2017, we received feedback from 4,174 final reports, although not all the respondents rated every question.

Absolute numbers of the respective ratings in the four main categories, although not all the respondents rated every question

The evaluation of the feedback refers to researchers who were successful in receiving funding from the FWF for their research project.
In the summer of 2012, the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) commissioned the Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance (iFQ) to carry out a survey of academic staff at universities and non-university research institutes in Austria. In detail, the focus was on application behaviour; application success; the level of awareness of funding institutions, in particular, familiarity with the FWF and its funding provision (funding); and the academics’ and researchers’ opinions of the FWF’s aims and principles and its selection procedures. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17855