Assessment criteria Carlsberg Foundation Interdisciplinary Research Centres

1. Ground-breaking and interdisciplinary nature and potential impact of the research centre 

• To what extent does the centre address major important scientific challenges?
• To what extent are the objectives of the centre original and ambitious, surpassing the state of the art through novel, integrated, and interdisciplinary research questions and approaches?
• How significant is the potential broader impact of the research?

2. Scientific approach of the centre

• How feasible is the proposed scientific approach?
• To what extent does the proposed approach demonstrate synergistic integration of methods and theories from different disciplines?
• To what extent are the research methodologies innovative and appropriate for achieving the goals of the centres?
• Are the proposed timeline, resources, and commitment of the applicants adequate and well justified?

3. Intellectual capacity, creativity and leadership skills of the PI team

• To what extent have the members of the PI team demonstrated excellence in high-impact, creative research and interdisciplinary leadership?
• Does the PI team possess the necessary scientific expertise and resources to successfully execute the proposed project? 
• To what extent does the PI team present a cohesive and equitable shared leadership model, clearly articulating how responsibilities and decision-making will be distributed?

Application

• To what extent is there a clear and relevant research question?
• To what extent is the application written such that it is accessible to non-experts?

Eligibility

• To what extent does the project meet the purpose of the grant type?

Research contribution

Originality and breakthroughs

• To what extent does the centre pursue genuinely interdisciplinary inquiry, making full use of the team’s combined disciplinary strengths to tackle complex research challenges?
• To what extent is the project original?
• To what extent does the project present a potential scientific breakthrough in the field?

Quality of approach

• Does the project propose a high-quality and innovative research strategy?
• Is the approach sufficiently novel to establish international competitiveness?
• Does the project articulate a clear and coherent plan for the career development of junior researchers affiliated with the centre?
• Is the budget appropriate and convincingly justified in relation to the proposed activities and goals?
• Are there effective mechanisms in place to promote interdisciplinary training and foster collaboration between junior and senior researchers?

Feasibility

• To what extent is the project plan realistic?
• Are the potential risks and are adequate contingency plans clearly outlined?

Qualifications of the PI team

• To what extent has the PI team demonstrated an ability to carry out innovative research that transcends beyond state-of-the-art?
• To what extent has the PI team succeeded in defining and developing the field?
• Where funding for scientific staff is included. To what extent has the applicant demonstrated leadership, supervision, and mentoring skills (e.g., research group, international collaboration, leadership course)?
• To what extent does the team present a clear vision for excellence in shared leadership?

Research group and organisation

• Does the application reflect a commitment to diversity and gender balance in recruitment, team composition, and leadership?
• Does the application demonstrate the strength, relevance, and integration of the research group, its organisation, and its national and international networks?
• Does the PI team present a convincing vision and practical plan for collaborative/shared leadership that will foster excellence and inclusivity throughout the grant period?

Centre structure and identity

• Is the organisational and governance structure of the centre clear and convincing?
• Does the application present a credible plan to foster a shared centre identity?
• Are there effective and sustainable mechanisms to promote an integrated, collaborative research culture?