Assessment of KID-applications

Please note that review panels are composed of researchers with expertise in a variety of fields. It is therefore vital that your application is written in a manner that allows assessment by a researcher outside their specific field.

Review criteria for KID applications

All applications shall be judged on equal terms. No application may receive special treatment as a result of the applicant's gender, age, origin or other irrelevant aspects.

The review criteria for the pre-application and the complete application differ somewhat. Suitability as a doctoral project, supervision and scientific quality are judge at both step 1, pre-application (“skissansökan”) and step 2, full application, while outcomes for doctoral education and project feasibility are specific for step 2, full application.

A detailed description of what is included in the assessment of pre-applications and complete applications respectively is given below.

Review criteria for pre-applications

A. Suitability as a doctoral education project

• Is the project realistic with respect to time, workload and expectations of one doctoral student?
• Does the application clearly describe the role of the doctoral student and the different tasks of the student?
• Is the research environment suitable for doctoral education projects? Are there opportunities for sharing knowledge, for interacting with other doctoral students and other researchers, as well as support with biomedical analysis, statistics, facilities, etc.?
• Are the sub-projects well integrated with the overall goal of the project?

B. Quality of supervision

• Do the principal supervisor and the co-supervisor(s) clearly describe and motivate how they intend to organise the supervision in the suggested project? Is it clearly described how (and to what extent?) the principal supervisor and the co-supervisor(s) will be involved in supervising the doctoral student?
• Is the planned supervision suitable for the doctoral education project?
  A) Is it well planned in terms of the goals of the project?
  B) Do the supervisors have the necessary competences and merits?
  C) Do the supervisors’ different types of expertise complement each other in a way that benefits the project and aligns with the intended outcomes of doctoral education?

C. Scientific quality

• Does the project involve new ideas/theories/interpretations?
• If the project aims are achieved, what is their significance for enriching knowledge in the specific research field and/or their contribution to advancement in health and healthcare?
• Does the overall design of the project, its research questions and hypothesis meet the standard of high scientific quality?

Review criteria for complete applications

A. Suitability as a doctoral education project

• Is the project realistic with respect to time, workload and expectations of one doctoral student?
• Does the application clearly describe the role of the doctoral student and the different tasks of the student?
• Is the research environment suitable for doctoral education projects? Are there opportunities for sharing knowledge, for interacting with other doctoral students and other researchers, as well as support with biomedical analysis, statistics, facilities, etc.?
• Are the sub-projects well integrated with the overall goal of the project?
• Are there opportunities for international sharing of knowledge and interaction (exchange/contacts)?

B. Quality of supervision and outcomes for doctoral education

• Do the principal supervisor and the co-supervisor(s) clearly describe and motivate how they intend to organise the supervision in the suggested project? Is it clearly described how (and to what extent?) the principal supervisor and the co-supervisor(s) will be involved in supervising the doctoral student?
• Is the planned supervision suitable for the doctoral education project?
  A) Is it well planned in terms of the goals of the project?
  B) Do the supervisors have the necessary competences and merits?
  C) Do the supervisors’ different types of expertise complement each other in a way that benefits the project and aligns with the intended outcomes of doctoral education?
• Is it clearly described how the respective principal and co-supervisor will help the student achieve the learning outcomes?
• Is it well described how the activities planned for the student will help the student achieve the intended outcomes for doctoral education and develop competences for research?

C. Scientific quality

• Does the project involve new ideas/theories/interpretations?
• If the project aims are achieved, what is their significance for enriching knowledge in the specific research field and/or their contribution to advancement in health and healthcare?
• Does the overall design of the project, its research questions and hypothesis meet the standard of high scientific quality?
• Does the project challenge established opinions and current praxis in medicine?
• Does the project seek to resolve important challenges in medical science?

D. Project feasibility

• How are potential risks mitigated to ensure that the doctoral student meets the learning outcomes?
• Are the available spaces, equipment and time sufficient to permit implementation of the project?
• Is there sufficient methodological know-how to implement the project in the manner described?
• Do the supervisor team and collaborators, together, cover the various research competences required for the project?
• Are materials, patients/participants/models and methods well-chosen and adjusted for the hypothesis or problem area in question?
• Is the project ethically defendable and the time plan adequate and justifiable?
• Is there a contingency plan, if chosen approaches and suggested goals fail?

Review process

All KID applications are assessed by active KI researchers. Pre-applications are randomly allocated among a number of review panels. Possible conflicts of interest are considered when assembling the panels.

Review of pre-applications

All researchers on the review panel assess the pre-applications allotted to the panel based on the above stated established review criteria. The assessors give a “priority” to each application as follows: 0 = Not accepted; 1 = To be discussed; 2 = Accepted. A meeting of each review panel is then held to discuss and select the applications that are to be approved and therefore go forward to the next stage, the submission of a complete application. No written statements are issued after this assessment. All applicants are notified via KI Prisma in mid-May as to whether they have gone forward in the process.

Review of complete applications

Complete applications are allocated to the review panels and all researchers on the respective panels assess each application allocated to their panel based on the above stated established review criteria. The assessors give a “priority” to each application as follows: 0 = Not accepted; 1 = To be discussed; 2 = Accepted. A meeting within each review panel is then held to prepare a joint proposal as to which applications the panel believes should be granted funding. These proposals are compiled into a draft proposal based on the reviewers’ written recommendations and discussions at the meetings.

Before a decision on funding is made by the Committee of Doctoral Education, the chair and one other representative from each review panel meet to prepare a final proposal for the allocation of the KID grants. The purpose of the meeting of panel chairpersons is to allow a discussion and comparison of the levels of quality between review panels.

Decision on allocation

The decision on the allocation of KID funding is made by the Committee of Doctoral Education based on the assessors’ ranking and quality-assurance of the applications. The preliminary plan is for a decision to be reached at a meeting in October.

Contact