Only in cases where the instrumentation is not basic but supplementary. Basic instrumentation is the instrumentation generally used at a department, at an institute or in a field of work. The DFG assumes that the usual basic instrumentation is available when awarding grants and does not, as a rule, fund this need. Supplementary instrumentation is the additional equipment required for a DFG project.

For empirical research projects, the Review Boards for Linguistics, Educational Research, Psychology, Social Sciences and Economics have agreed on an exclusion list for typical basic instrumentation. According to this, the following fall under the category of basic resources as a matter of principle:

• PCs, laptops
• Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if the instrumentation has to meet special requirements and can only be used for a specific purpose (e.g. measuring computers, tropicalised instrumentation)
• External storage media (e.g. hard drives, USB sticks)
• (Digital) recording devices and accessories
• Cameras/digital cameras with typical features
• Video cameras/camcorders with typical features
• Software for the workplace (e.g. Office), literature management and data evaluation (e.g. SPSS, Atlas, MAXQDA, Stata); subject-specific programming systems (e.g. MatLab)

The DFG estimates a flat rate of €150.00 per hour of measurement time for MRI instrumentation up to 3 Tesla. For whole-body MRIs from a field strength of 7 Tesla upwards, this rate increases to €375.00 per hour.

It should be noted that these costs only cover a limited project-specific share of the total cost. Most of the full costs, in particular personnel costs for operation, maintenance contracts, depreciation and reinvestment costs, current expenses for building and maintenance etc., must be financed as part of the basic resources of the scientific research institutions.

The DFG contact for questions on the issue of MRI costs is

Dr. Christian Renner
Scientific Instruments and Information Technology Group
Tel. 0228/885-2324
E-mail: Christian.Renner@dfg.de(externer Link).

For further information, please see:

DFG form 55.04 - Note on benchmark figures when applying for usage costs(interner Link)

The determination of appropriate sample sizes for statistical hypothesis testing is of key importance in terms of the validity, interpretation and replicability of empirical research results. Explicit sample planning based on plausible criteria is therefore an essential quality feature for the funding eligibility of DFG proposals in the field of psychology. The review board has compiled the following information for applicants:

Sample sizes, i.e. the number of planned research units per study, should be determined based on statistical decision-making criteria. As a rule, a statistical power analysis is carried out to determine a priori sample size using an effect size that is theoretically postulated or empirically derived from previous studies. Realistic assumptions about a given effect size are necessary, for example the smallest effect size relevant to the respective research subject or an aggregate of estimated effect sizes from previous (pilot) studies, taking into account any possible bias of published effect sizes through p selection.

For studies in which statistical hypothesis testing is conducted using a significance test, the justification of the planned sample size should include the following information:

• an indication of the statistical model by means of which the data is analysed,
• specification of the specific statistical test in this model for which the sample size determination was carried out (usually testing the main question of the empirical study),
• specification of the underlying effect variable to be detected with 1-β probability (statistical power) for type-1 error probability α (significance level) based on the determined sample size,
• an explicit justification of the underlying effect size, and
• specification of the chosen α and β error probabilities of the statistical test.

The information should be presented in such a way that the calculation is plausible and replication of the resulting sample size is possible.

Sample planning using a statistical power analysis based on the above information can be performed for many statistical procedures using freely available software (such as GPower, R packages, fMRIpower). For more complex statistical procedures (such as multivariate structural equation models, multilevel analyses or multivariate procedures and connectivity analyses in neuroimaging), statistical power analyses are often very complex or lack established, standard procedures. In individual cases, it may be necessary to resort to simulation studies that allow a statistical power analysis of the detection probability of an effect of a given size with a certain sample size.

If sample size is limited by the availability of study units (e.g. in the case of small clinical or neuropsychological populations or rare personal characteristics), or by the practical feasibility of very complex studies or other external factors, such limitations should be plausibly substantiated. In such cases, a sensitivity analysis can show the effect size that can be detected with sufficient statistical power based on the sample size that can realistically be achieved. On this basis, an assessment should be made of the extent to which the study can be expected to produce meaningful results despite the limited sample size.

If statistical decision criteria for hypothesis testing are used that do not provide for an a priori determination of the final sample size (e.g. Bayesian updating, sequential testing), the reasons for not using a specific number of cases should be explicitly stated. When applying for funding (e.g. remuneration for participants, personnel and material resources as survey costs), justified upper limits of the expected number of cases should be specified that allow the feasibility of the project to be assessed. Furthermore, the statistical procedure of hypothesis testing using the flexible sample size should be plausible and include the chosen cut-off rules for sampling and statistical decision-making.

The Psychology Review Board has discussed possible causes of false-positive findings and countermeasures and published the results of this discussion in an article in Psychologische Rundschau (Ulrich et al. (2016), Inflation von falsch-positiven Befunden in der psychologischen Forschung ("Inflation of false-positive findings in psychological research”). Psychologische Rundschau, 67, 163-174.). This discussion gave rise to the determination of funding criteria for direct replication studies (in German only)(Download).

Yes. Licensed psychologists who hold a doctorate in psychology and who are active in patient care can apply for a temporary substitute to be released from their clinical duties.

A flat-rate amount is used to finance a temporary substitute position(interner Link) based on the category “postdoctoral position and equivalent”, irrespective of the actual remuneration of the person to be released.

Please also note the information contained in the module guidelines “Temporary substitutes”(interner Link).

Please use a format that is meaningful and common in psychology (APA Style or comparable). Proposals using a more abbreviated format will be returned for revision.

It is possible to apply for license fees for testing to be covered, provided these are necessary to carry out the project. Given the fact that open access testing is becoming increasingly widespread and established, the Psychology Review Board recommends examining whether so-called “licence-free” testing can be used for the project in question.

Research data (in a broad sense) is an essential starting point for the vast majority of projects in the field of archaeology while at the same time constituting a major proportion of the research results. Review Board 101 (“Ancient Cultures”) has formulated recommendations and expectations (in German only)(Download) for the handling of research data in proposals and funded projects, taking into account subject-specific challenges. The Review Board’s guide aims to provide concrete guidance on this important aspect both for the application and the review process.

Based on its experience of research proposals for edition projects, the Literary Studies Review Board has developed a guide (in German only)(Download) that lays down criteria for the review of scholarly editions as well as standards for digital editions. This guide has primarily been compiled for reviewers, but it is equally relevant to the preparation of proposals in this area. For edition projects with a funding period of more than six years, proposals are to be submitted under the long-term programme.

At the initiative of DFG Review Board 104 “Linguistics”, two round-table discussions on the survey of oral and written language corpora took place in 2012 and 2013. As a result of these round tables, working groups were established which have formulated recommendations for the survey of language corpora (in German only)(Download). These recommendations relate to “Data system standards and tools in the survey of language corpora” and “Legal aspects involved in handling language corpora”. Both papers are intended to serve as a guide for all researchers in this field, especially applicants and reviewers in connection with DFG programmes.

At the initiative of DFG Review Board 109 “Educational Research”, a round-table discussion was held in 2014 on the provision and use of quantitative data in educational research. The quality of research in this field often depends on the available data sets, while the generation of such sets is highly sophisticated. The round table produced a memorandum (in German only)(Download) describing fields of action and development perspectives with the aim of providing the most effective support possible for the handling of research data within the community of educational researchers. This is to serve as a guide for all researchers in this field, especially applicants and reviewers in connection with DFG programmes.

The Economics Review Board has formulated subject-specific expectations(Download) that applicants are to follow with regard to the careful handling of research data. These expectations complement and flesh out the RatSWD guidelines, for example.

The Social and Cultural Anthropology, Non-European Cultures, Jewish Studies and Religious Studies Review Board has formulated recommendations and expectations for the handling of research data(interner Link) in both proposals and funded projects, taking into account subject-specific challenges. This guide (in German only)(Download) is intended to provide applicants and experts with subject-specific orientation. It complements the DFG’s “Guidelines on the Handling of Research Data”.

If you have any questions about funding opportunities offered by the DFG or about subject-specific issues, the relevant contact persons(interner Link) at the Head Office will be happy to help you.

Based on its experience of receiving research proposals for edition projects, the Theology Review Board has developed a guide (in German only)(Download) to assist applicants in selecting the appropriate funding format and preparing proposals.