Over all Principles

“In the DNRF we take the task of assessing and selecting the research proposals very seriously, and we continually aim to implement the best processes.”

Transparent and open review process

The processes used for assessment and evaluation are characterized by a qualitative approach with extensive use of peer reviews, individual review panels, and a high degree of transparency. Colloquially, we refer to the model as a “double-open” peer review process, in which both the applicants and the reviewers know each other’s identity.

Review not anonymous

The DNRF will forward the reviews to the applicant as part of the consultation process; thus, the review is not anonymous. The applicant is informed about the various steps throughout the review process, and he/she is asked to comment on the composition of the review panel as well as given a chance to comment on the reviewers’ reports before the board makes its final decision regarding funding the project. The applicant’s involvement in determining the composition of the peer review panel ensures that possible conflicts of interest are exposed at an early stage. This involvement is also helpful in ensuring the scientific standing and relevant profile of the reviewers. It is a challenge to assemble review panels of high international standard and at the same time make sure that all important research areas within the individual proposal are represented. It is our experience that the reviewers’ scientific standing is of high priority to the applicants, and involving the applicant helps to guard against a possible lack of expertise in the review panel. You can find more information about the process within specific assessments or evaluation procedures in the menu to the left.

Regarding conflict of interest

In order to ensure that the review is not biased – and could not be suspected of bias – a reviewer must not have a conflict of interest. This means that a reviewer must not have any close friendship with or family ties to the center leader or the leader of the Danish-Chinese Research Center or any other people in the center. Participation in joint research projects or co-authorship might also be considered a case of such close ties. The center leader is given the membership of the reviewing panel in order to bring to the surface possible conflicts of interest, etc.