v.

2023 1 of 3

PHD FELLOWSHIP FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH EVALUATION/ score grid with scoring descriptors - INTERVIEW

PHD FELLOWSHIP: scoring descriptors criterion “Candidate” (interview)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unacceptable Weak Fair/Reasonable Good/very good Excellent/outstanding

During the interview, candidates are assessed on their potential to develop towards an independent researcher with proper reasoning skills and a critical mindset. Scientific knowledge and project insight are also
key elements in the evaluation. Descriptions in the score grid (“potential”, “competent”, “knowledge”, “skills”, “mindset”, … ) implicitly also take into account the evaluation findings of the preselection phase.

1. Potential competence as an independent doctoral researcher (reasoning skills and critical mindset, scientific knowledge and project insight)
One or more of the following items apply: One or more of the following items apply: One or more of the following items apply: ALL of the following items apply: ALL of the following items apply:

□ Lack of the inherent qualities
required of a doctoral
researcher. Reasoning skills and
critical scientific mindset are
below par. Not even strict
guidance or supervision would
allow to adequately
compensate for this;
□ clear gaps in basic knowledge of
the research area. Virtually no
insight into the aim and
approach of the project.
□ Research skills are present: with close
supervision, able to obtain a PhD.
Reasoning skills and critical mindset
below average and to be developed
further;
□ (just) sufficient basic knowledge to
undertake the PhD project. Limited
insight into the relevance of the
proposed research approach.
□ Research skills present, candidate □ Motivated and (potentially) competent □ Very convincing and driven candidate
is able to carry out research independent researcher. (Very) good with great potential as researcher, very
relatively independently. Lacks reasoning skills and a good critical good reasoning skills and ditto critical
some maturity, but is motivated. scientific attitude. Presents new scientific mindset. Presents innovative,
Relatively good reasoning skills concepts in a meaningful way. original concepts in a convincing and
but less critical attitude. substantiated fashion.
□ Solid basic knowledge within own field
□ The candidate has sufficient basic of research, but less knowledgeable □ Excellent grasp of own field of research,
knowledge within the field of outside this field. Good insight into knowledgeable in areas outside. Excellent
research. He/she has a rather relevance of proposed research insight into the relevance of the
good insight into the relevance of approach. proposed research approach and
the proposed research approach. positioning of project.
v. 2023 2 of 3

PHD FELLOWSHIP FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH EVALUATION/ score grid with scoring descriptors - INTERVIEW

PHD FELLOWSHIP: scoring descriptors criterion “Project” (preselection + interview)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unacceptable Weak Fair/Reasonable Good/very good Excellent/outstanding
2.a Scientific quality, relevance and challenge, originality
A PhD project is scientifically challenging and relies on a proper and focused research question. It should significantly contribute to the current international state-of-the-art. To what extent is the proposal
original and will it generate knowledge that goes beyond the state-of-the-art (e.g., novel theories, concepts or approaches, new methods, …)?
One or more of the following items apply: One or more of the following items apply: One or more of the following items apply: ALL of the following items apply: ALL of the following items apply:

□ The project is out of scope: it □ Research question and challenge □ Scientifically relevant project, □ Original and significant contribution □ Highly ambitious and original project of
does not comply with the scope limited or less relevant, rather high quality, and sufficiently to the international state of the art. potentially groundbreaking nature and
of the panel it was submitted challenging as PhD-research. The large scientific impact,
to. (preselection only) □ the research objectives lack focus. research is less well focused. □ High-quality basic research, with
PhD worthiness is on the low side, significant scientific challenges □ very high level of scientific risks. Clear
□ Project lacks an intellectual □ The project brings less pronounced (doctoral level). inventive and challenging ideas, novel
(PhD-worthy) challenge: an in- □ the project is rather a catch-up effort added value to international state- concepts and strategies.
depth research question is relative to the state-of-the-art. of-the-art.
missing
2.b Quality of the research methodology and feasibility of the project
To what extent is the proposed research methodology appropriate to achieve the goals laid down in the research project? To what extent is the outlined scientific approach feasible, bearing in mind a personal
grant with a duration of four years? Finally the fit in the research team may be of importance (guidance and access to expertise) .
One or more of the following items apply: One or more of the following items apply: □ Research methodology reasonably ALL of the following items apply: Requirements as in “very good”,
□ Quality of research approach well elaborated, but less well
□ Methodology and planning are □ Adequate, substantiated research
and planning is below par; substantiated. Given some AND
flawed. Intrinsic feasibility is low , or methodology to achieve targeted
adjustments and risk control, □ thorough identification of the research
the objectives are formulated too results, logical set-up and realistic
□ Research activities are too project implementation appears to risks, with alternative research strategies
vaguely to evaluate feasibility. planning: feasible within the four-
limited for a four-year grant be feasible. and “fall back” research options.
year time frame.
period;
□ Project does not fit to an individual
PhD project. □ Good fit of project in research group
□ Project not feasible because of activities, giving candidate access to
too many planned activities. necessary expertise.
□ Ties with/dependence of other
researchers, groups or external
partners may jeopardize feasibility.
v. 2023 3 of 3

PHD FELLOWSHIP FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH EVALUATION/ score grid with scoring descriptors - INTERVIEW

PHD FELLOWSHIP: scoring descriptors criterion “Interdisciplinarity” (preselection + interview)

Specific Interdisciplinary Panel only
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unacceptable Weak Fair/Reasonable Good/Very good Excellent/Outstanding
3. Level of interdisciplinarity
This criterion, only used in the Specific Interdisciplinary panel, invites you to assess to what extent the application is interdisciplinary. You may take both the project proposal, the profile of the candidate and
the research group(s) in which they will be working into account in applying this criterion.
A minimum score of 4 on the aspect ‘Interdisciplinarity’ is necessary in order to be able to receive funding from the Specific Interdisciplinary Panel.
□ The project is not □ The project is multidisciplinary One or more of the following items apply: All of the following items apply: Requirements as in “good/very good”,
interdisciplinary or instead of interdisciplinary in
multidisciplinary at all. The nature. Although the research □ Some characteristics of interdisciplinarity □ There is more than one discipline AND
are present, but not all requirements for involved in the proposed project, and
proposed research is focused covers at least two different □ There is a pronounced synergy
the category “good/very good” are met. these disciplines are sufficiently
within one discipline. disciplines, the expertise, between all involved disciplines, that
While there is more than one discipline distinct.
methods, tools, data, … of one strongly benefit from and mutually
discipline are merely used as an involved in the proposed project, these influence each other in an integrated
‘instrument’ for the other disciplines are not sufficiently distinct. □ The disciplines are at a similar and well-designed way.
domain. The various domains do This is for example the case if these coordinated level and each discipline is
not offer benefits to one another disciplines are located in the same FWO essential to achieve the expected AND
nor do they mutually influence panel. outcome. □ The outcomes will clearly impact all
each other. Instead they are involved disciplines and as such there
juxtaposed. The outcomes of the □ Although mutual interactive input is □ The state of the art is advanced in all is substantial added value for each
project are not likely to impact all necessary from at least two distinct involved disciplines and/or in a shared involved discipline and/or new
disciplines to address the research area. bridges between previously rarely
involved disciplines.
question(s) under investigation, the level related fields are built or new
of coordination and integration is subdisciplines could result from this
insufficiently extensive/profound. project.

□ The involved disciplines do not

sufficiently influence one another and as
a result they do not benefit to the same
extent from the project.