General Information
Responsibilities, framework rules and regulations, structure, election and election regulations.
Responsibilities, Framework Rules and Regulations
One of the main tasks of the review board members, who serve in an honorary capacity, is to ensure the quality of the DFG’s review process.This is significantly different from the tasks carried out by the DFG’s review committees, which were in place until 2004. Whereas review committees were responsible for conducting individual peer reviews, the DFG’s review boards are now responsible for ensuring the overall quality of the review process. Peer review is generally carried out outside the review boards (please note that exceptions, particularly in the coordinated programmes, may be made). The aim is to achieve a clear distinction between individual peer review and an overall assessment of the review process (quality assurance).
Reviewers who evaluate individual proposals are no longer “elected”, but are selected for their expertise in the subject area in question. Having unelected reviewers participate in the review process is not completely new. Even during the work of the review committees, "special reviewers" were used to a considerable extent in some subject areas. This was especially necessary when the elected members of the review committees did not have the specialist knowledge of the proposals’ subject matter or could not be involved for personal reasons, for example conflicts of interest or excessive workloads. The main criteria for selecting reviewers are still their academic and scientific qualifications and standing and a specialist knowledge of the proposal's subject matter (while at the same time avoiding conflicts of interest).
The review boards’ responsibilities and procedures are laid down in the “Rahmengeschäftsordnung”, a framework of rules and regulations established by the DFG’s Senate.
The review boards can choose between various working methods laid down in the framework policy, and are thus able to structure the review and evaluation of proposals according to their individual disciplines. In the written evaluation procedure, following the actual review, the proposal and funding recommendation are forwarded to the review board for the drafting of a final decision for submission to the Joint Committee. Having a general overview of all proposals submitted within the subject area, the review board ensures that the same high quality standards and criteria were applied as compared with other proposals in the field, and that appropriate reviewers were selected.
If the review process is carried out by a review panel, at least one member of the review board will be involved. The review board member takes part in the evaluation and is responsible for ensuring that standard quality criteria are applied equally in all funding programmes (quality assurance).
Another important change resulting from the reform is the obligatory participation of elected researchers in practically all funding programmes, in particular compulsory participation in the review panels for the coordinated funding programmes (e.g. Collaborative Research Centres, DFG Research Centres, Clusters of Excellence, Priority Programmes, Research Training Groups, Graduate Schools and Research Units). In addition, the review boards will be more extensively involved in the DFG's strategic planning, compared to the former role of review committees.
The main objectives of the reform were to enhance the DFG’s concept of self-governance in the scientific and academic communities, with researchers acting for and on behalf of these communities. Thus the influence of elected review board members, who ensure the scientific quality of the overall review process, was increased, and more transparency was provided in the review system. The new system was also redesigned in such a way as to respond more quickly to changes in the research system, particularly with regard to interdisciplinary needs and developing new subjects and research areas. Another objective was to relieve elected members of having to prepare extensive reviews and to distribute the decision work as equally as possible between all elected members.
Review Board Structure
Members of review boards are assigned to a subject area in accordance with the core focus of their scientific and academic research. At least two members are elected per subject area. The number of additional members depends on how many funding proposals are to be reviewed and evaluated in the research area concerned. A review board is made up of several subject areas that are scientifically interlinked. The structure of the subject areas and review boards is examined by the DFG Senate during preparations for the each election of review board members; the structure may be amended if necessary.
- DFG Classification of Subject Area, Review Board, Research Area and Scientific Discipline (Status: 06/2008) (pdf | 73 KB)
- List of Current Review Boards (2008-2011 Membership Period) (available only in German) (pdf | 31 KB)
- List of Previous Review Boards (2004-2007 Membership Period) (available only in German) (pdf | 23 KB)
Election of Members
The list of review board candidates is drawn up on the basis of the procedures defined in the election regulations. Nominations are solicited from DFG member organisations, recipients of the Leibniz Prize, the Donors' Association for the Promotion of Science and Humanities in Germany, and selected specialist scientific and academic societies and faculty conferences. The Senate then draws up a list of candidates based on these recommendations. The following criteria are used as the basis for selection: scientific, academic, and personal qualifications of the candidates, required number of candidates per subject area, subject balance within the list of candidates, number of times a person was nominated by those eligible to make a recommendation, appropriate consideration of female researchers, balanced age mix, and appropriate consideration of non-university research. In accordance with the election regulations, researchers whose oral doctoral examination took place more than a year before the election are eligible to vote. In addition to personal qualifications, one prerequisite for active eligibility to vote is that, during the voting period, the candidate must conduct research in a DFG member organisation or in a research institute recognised by the Senate as a voting centre.In some circumstances, researchers who do not work in a member organisation or an institute recognised as a voting centre may be granted active eligibility to vote ad personam. Those who are actively eligible to vote may cast up to six votes for candidates from all research areas. Candidates may be given up to three votes.
