Three‑stage review process
Applications are assessed through a structured three‑stage review process designed to ensure eligibility, scientific quality, and strategic alignment with the Foundation’s purpose.
1. Eligibility and administrative screening
In the first stage, the secretariat conducts eligibility and administrative screening. This is not a scientific assessment, but a formal check to ensure that applications meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria set out in the call, and that they fall within the scope, objectives, and rules of the funding scheme.
Applications that do not meet these requirements are excluded from further consideration.
2. Scientific assessment by external experts
Applications that pass the screening are assessed by panels of independent external experts, who evaluate each application independently of each other according to the following four criteria:
Criteria 1: Excellence (Scientific quality)
• The clarity, relevance and ambition of the scientific objectives and research questions.
• The degree to which the proposed research is original and advances knowledge beyond the current state of the art.
• The soundness, credibility and robustness of the scientific approach and methodology.
• The extent to which the proposed work is well-founded in relevant theory, concepts and prior research.
Criteria 2: Impact (Effects and outcomes)
• The potential of the project’s results to generate effects within research, society or policy, as specified by the call objectives.
• The credibility and realism of the expected outcomes and their contribution to stated goals.
• The quality and appropriateness of plans for dissemination, communication and use of results.
• The added value of the project compared to existing research, initiatives or funding instruments.
Criteria 3: Implementation
• The coherence, structure and feasibility of the work plan, including tasks, milestones and deliverables.
• The appropriateness of project organization, including roles, responsibilities and competence of the project team or leadership.
• The realism and justification of the project timeline, budget and allocation of resources.
• The identification of key risks and the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures.
Finally, the shortlisted projects are considered by the Foundation’s Research Funding Committee for strategic alignment with the Foundation’s purpose and approved Program Mandate, explicitly considering:
3. Strategic and purpose‑oriented review
Criteria 4: Det Norske Veritas Foundation’s priorities
• A clear rationale for how the proposed research contributes to the Foundation’s purpose of safeguarding life, property and the environment
• The extent to which the proposal advances basic scientific research within the call’s defined priority areas.
• Coherence, balance, and quality of the funded portfolio as a whole
• Responsible and proportionate use of the available grant envelope and opportunity cost
• Integrity, ethical, reputational and governance robustness
All criteria are weighted equally and scored on a scale from 1 to 7, where 7 is the highest score. Applications are ranked and shortlisted based on the experts’ evaluation.
[Further information on the review and evaluation process is provided in the Review and decision process document here.]
Board review
The final award from the RFC shall be subject to board review. The Board can send the recommendation back to the RFC for follow up if they find that the process has not met ethical guidelines or that the final proposal is not in line with foundation purpose. Any member of the Board that is part of the RFC shall be recused and not be part of the board's elaboration.