SUOMEN AKATEMIA Terveyden tutkimuksen toimikunta

Transkriptio

1 SUOMEN AKATEMIA Terveyden tutkimuksen toimikunta TERVEYDEN TUTKIMUKSEN TOIMIKUNNAN AKATEMIAHANKKEET 2014 Suomen Akatemian terveyden tutkimuksen toimikunta päätti kokouksessaan rahoittaa 33 akatemiahanketta. Rahoitetut hankkeet ja niiden julkiset kuvaukset ovat nähtävissä Akatemian verkkosivuilla kohdassa Rahoituspäätökset. Kilpailu akatemiahankerahoituksesta koveni edelleen Terveyden tutkimuksen toimikunnalle jätettiin syyskuun haussa 241 akatemiahankehakemusta, joissa haettiin rahoitusta yhteensä noin 109 miljoonaa euroa. Hakemusten määrä kasvoi 9 prosenttia verrattuna viime vuoden hakuun. Toimikunta teki rahoituspäätöksiä yhteensä 14,1 miljoonalla eurolla ja myönsi rahoituksen 33 akatemiahankkeelle, joista kaksi oli konsortiohankkeita. Myönteisen rahoituspäätöksen sai näin 38 hakijaa eli 15,7 prosenttia hakijoista. Naisia oli 34 prosenttia kaikista hakijoista eli 39 prosenttia myönteisen rahoituspäätöksen saaneista. Kasvava hakemusmäärä ja myönnettävän rahoituksen putoaminen johtavat yhä kovenevaan kilpailuun hankerahoituksesta. Tilanne on turhauttava niin hakijoiden, hakemuksia arvioivien asiantuntijoiden kuin toimikunnan näkökulmasta, kun niin moni korkeatasoinen ja uutta luova tutkimus jää rahoittamatta. Kansainvälinen vertaisarviointi päätösten perustana Hakemukset arvioitiin 12 kansainvälisissä arviointipaneelissa (liite 1), jotka kokoontuivat tammihelmikuussa Helsingissä. Yksi paneeleista järjestettiin yhdessä biotieteiden ja ympäristön tutkimuksen toimikunnan kanssa. Muutamalle hakemukselle pyydettiin paneelien arvioinnin tueksi lausunnot paneelien ulkopuolisilta asiantuntijoilta. Paneeleissa oli asiantuntijoita yhteensä 108 ja he olivat 19 maasta. Eniten asiantuntijoita oli Iso-Britanniasta, Saksasta ja Alankomaista. Asiantuntijoista 37 prosenttia oli naisia. Paneeli keskusteli jokaisesta hakemuksesta ja antoi niistä arvosanan sekä kirjallisen lausunnon, joka on luettavissa Akatemian verkkoasioinnissa hakijan omilla tunnuksilla. Paneelien työskentelyn periaatteista saa lisätietoja Akatemian verkkosivuilta. Arviointipaneelit pitivät hakemusten tieteellistä laatua yleisesti hyvänä, ja parhaita arvosanoja saaneita hankkeita pidettiin kilpailukykyisinä kansainvälisellä tasolla. Paneelien palautteesta on tehty yhteenveto (liite 2), johon on koottu yleisimpiä ja usein toistuvia tutkimussuunnitelman puutteita, joihin vastaaminen parantaisi niiden laatua. Toimikunta perehtyi hakemuksiin kiinnittäen erityistä huomiota paneelin antamiin lausuntoihin. Rahoituspäätöksiä tehdessään toimikunta piti tieteellistä laatua ensisijaisena ja tärkeimpänä asiana päätöksenteossa. Toimikunta myös vertaili eri paneelien käyttämiä arvosanoja. Käytettävissään olevien varojen puitteissa toimikunta rahoitti 33 parhaimmaksi katsomaansa hakemusta. Kaikki rahoitetut hankkeet olivat saaneet joko arvosanan 6 tai 5 (Kuva 1). Toimikunta päätti kokouksessaan asettaa kymmenen hakemusta varasijalistalle. Jos joku akatemiahankerahoituksen saajista ei ota vastaan saamaansa rahoitusta tai toimikunnan käytössä oleva valtuus kasvaa loppuvuonna, listalle kuuluville hankkeille tarjotaan rahoitusta varasijalistan osoittamassa järjestyksessä. Varalista on voimassa asti.

2 Kuva 1. Akatemiahankehakemusten arvosanojen jakauma (241 hakemusta) Rating scale outstanding 5 excellent 4 very good 3 good 2 unsatisfactory 1 weak All projects Funded projects Rahoituksen saajalle Rahoituksen maksaminen edellyttää vastuullisen johtajan sekä suorituspaikan vahvistusta rahoituksen vastaanottamisesta Akatemian verkkoasioinnin kautta kuuden viikon kuluessa päätöspäivästä ( mennessä). Vahvistaessaan rahoituksen vastuullinen johtaja ja tutkimuksen suorituspaikka hyväksyvät rahoituspäätöksen sisällön kokonaisuudessaan ja sitoutuvat noudattamaan Akatemian asettamia rahoituksen käyttöön liittyviä ehtoja. Vastuullinen johtaja voi tarvittaessa tehdä ehdotuksen kustannusarvion muutoksesta kuuden viikon kuluessa päätöspäivästä Akatemian verkkoasioinnissa. Ohjeet löytyvät Akatemian verkkosivuilta kohdasta Vuosierät. Lisätietoja: Sirpa Nuotio Antti Hautaniemi Vera Raivola johtava tiedeasiantuntija tiedeasiantuntija tiedeasiantuntija p p p sirpa.nuotio(at)aka.fi antti.hautaniemi(at)aka.fi vera.raivola(at)aka.fi paneelit 1, 3 ja 6 paneelit 2, 4, 5 ja 8 paneelit 7, 10, 11 ja 12 LIITTEET: Liite 1. Asiantuntijapaneelien kokoonpano (englanniksi) Liite 2. Asiantuntijapaneelien palaute hakijoille (englanniksi)

3 FINLANDS AKADEMI Forskningsrådet för hälsa AKADEMIPROJEKTSFINANSIERING HOS FORSKNINGSRÅDET FÖR HÄLSA 2014 Forskningsrådet för hälsa vid Finlands Akademi har vid sitt möte den 23 april 2014 fattat beslut om ansökningar om akademiprojektsfinansiering. Finansiering beviljades till 33 projekt. En lista på finansierade projekt samt deras beskrivningar kan nås via vår webbplats på sidan Finansieringsbeslut. Allt hårdare konkurrens om finansiering Under septemberutlysningen 2013 mottog forskningsrådet för hälsa sammanlagt 241 ansökningar om finansiering inom bidragsformen akademiprojekt. Den totala sökta finansieringen uppgick till ca 109 miljoner euro. Antalet ansökningar ökade med 9 procent jämfört med året innan. Forskningsrådets totala finansiering för akademiprojekt uppgår till 14,1 miljoner euro och finansiering beviljas till 33 projekt, varav två är konsortier. Av de sökande beviljades 38 finansiering, dvs. beviljandegraden var 15,7 procent. Kvinnor utgjorde 34 procent av alla sökande och 39 procent av dem som fick bifall. Konkurrensen om Akademins finansiering för forskningsprojekt blir allt hårdare eftersom antalet ansökningar fortsätter att öka och Akademins forskningsanslag skärs ner. Det är en frustrerande situation för såväl sökande, bedömare som forskningsråden. Det leder till att många högklassiga och nyskapande projekt blir utan finansiering. Finansieringsbesluten grundar sig på internationell peer review Ansökningarna bedömdes av tolv internationella paneler (se bilaga 1) som sammanträdde i januari och februari i Helsingfors. En av panelerna ordnades tillsammans med forskningsrådet för biovetenskap och miljö. Som stöd för sitt arbete konsulterade panelerna vid behov utomstående experter. I panelerna deltog 108 experter från 19 länder, flest från Storbritannien, Tyskland och Nederländerna. Kvinnornas andel var 37 procent. Panelerna diskuterade varje ansökan, gav betyg och utarbetade ett skriftligt utlåtande. Utlåtandena kan läsas i Akademins e-tjänst genom att logga in på den egna profilen. Mer information om panelarbetet finns på Akademins webbplats. Panelerna ansåg att den vetenskapliga kvaliteten hos ansökningarna i allmänhet var god. De högst värderade ansökningarna var konkurrenskraftiga på en internationell nivå. I sammanfattningen av panelresponsen (se bilaga 2) lyfts fram allmänna och ofta förekommande faktorer som inverkar på forskningsplaners kvalitet. Vid genomgången av ansökningarna fäste forskningsrådet för hälsa särskild uppmärksamhet vid panelernas utlåtanden. Vid finansieringsbesluten var den vetenskapliga kvaliteten hos ansökningarna det viktigaste kriteriet. Forskningsrådet jämförde också panelernas betyg. Med beaktande av sina forskningsanslag beslutade forskningsrådet att finansiera 33 av de bästa ansökningarna (som fått betyg 6 eller 5, se figur 1). Forskningsrådet placerade tio ansökningar på en reservlista. Om något av de projekt som beviljats finansiering inte tar emot den, eller om forskningsrådet får ökade anslag, kan ett projekt som placerats på reservlistan erbjudas finansiering (enligt ordningen på listan). Reservlistan gäller fram till den 31 december 2014.

4 Figur 1. Betygsfördelning för akademiprojektsansökningar (n = 241) Rating scale outstanding 5 excellent 4 very good 3 good 2 unsatisfactory 1 weak All projects Funded projects Bra att veta För att finansieringen ska kunna utbetalas krävs att den ansvariga ledaren och forskningsplatsen bekräftar att de tar emot finansieringen. Bekräftelsen ska göras via Akademins e-tjänst inom sex veckor från beslutsdagen (dvs. senast ). Med bekräftelsen godkänner den ansvariga ledaren och forskningsplatsen finansieringsbeslutets innehåll i sin helhet och förbinder sig att följa de villkor som Akademin ställt för medelsanvändningen. Vid behov kan den ansvariga ledaren inom sex veckor från beslutsdagen lämna in en ansökan om ändring av kostnadsberäkningen. Anvisningarna finns på webben på sidan Årliga belopp. Mer information: Sirpa Nuotio Antti Hautaniemi Vera Raivola ledande vetenskapsrådgivare vetenskapsrådgivare vetenskapsrådgivare tfn tfn tfn sirpa.nuotio(at)aka.fi antti.hautaniemi(at)aka.fi vera.raivola(at)aka.fi panel 1, 3 och 6 panel 2, 4, 5 och 8 panel 7, 10, 11 och 12 BILAGOR: Bilaga 1. Panelernas sammansättning (på engelska) Bilaga 2. Panelrespons (på engelska)

5 ACADEMY OF FINLAND Research Council for Health 23 April 2014 ACADEMY PROJECT FUNDING 2014 At its meeting on 23 April 2014, the Academy of Finland s Research Council for Health decided to grant Academy Project funding to 33 research projects. A list of the projects and their descriptions are available via our website at Funding decisions. Competition for funding increasingly fierce Within the Academy s September 2013 call, the Research Council for Health received a total of 241 applications for Academy Project funding. The total funding applied for from the Research Council amounted to some EUR 109 million. Compared to the 2012 call, the number of applications grew by 9 per cent. The Research Council decided to grant funding worth EUR 14.1 million to 33 projects, two of which are consortia. In all 38 projects received funding, that is, the success rate was 15.7 per cent. Women accounted for 34 per cent of applicants and for 39 per cent of funding recipients. The growing number of applications and the decreasing amount of funds available inevitably leads to increasingly fierce competition for Academy project funding. With so many high-quality and innovative applications being left without funding, the situation can become frustrating for both applicants, reviewers and the Research Council. Decisions based on international peer review The applications were reviewed in twelve international expert panels (Appendix 1), which convened in Helsinki in January and February. One of the panels was held jointly with the Research Council for Biosciences and Environment. In their work, the panels consulted external experts where necessary. The panels involved a total of 108 experts from 19 countries (most from the UK, Germany and the Netherlands). Women accounted for 37 per cent of reviewers. The panel discussed, rated and issued a written review report on each application. The applicants can read the expert review issued on their application by logging in to the Academy s online services. Read more on the principles of panel work on our website. The evaluation panels found the overall scientific quality of the applications good. The applications scored with the highest grades were found competitive on an international level. The summary of the panel feedback (Appendix 2) highlights some general points concerning the scientific quality of research plans. The Research Council for Health examined the applications, paying special attention to the panel reviews. In making the funding decisions, the most important criterion was the scientific quality of the applications The Research Council also compared the scores given by different panels. Within the limits of the funds available, the Research Council decided to grant funding to 33 of the best applications. All of the funded projects had received ratings 6 or 5 (Figure 1). The Research Council placed ten applications on a reserve list. If an applicant who has been granted Academy Project funding decides not to accept it, or if the Research Council receives more funds to distribute, projects placed on the reserve list can be offered funding (in order of precedence in which funding is offered). The list is valid until 31 December 2014.

6 Figure 1. Score distribution for Academy Project applications (n = 241) Rating scale outstanding 5 excellent 4 very good 3 good 2 unsatisfactory 1 weak All projects Funded projects Please note Before the funds can be paid, the principal investigator and the site of research must confirm that they will receive the funding. The confirmation must be done in the Academy s online services within six weeks from the decision date (i.e. by 5 June 2014). By confirming the funding, the PI and the site of research accept the whole funding decision and commit themselves to complying with the conditions set by the Academy for the use of funds. If necessary, the PI may apply for changes in the cost estimate within six weeks from the decision date. Instructions are available on our website under Annual instalments. More information Sirpa Nuotio Antti Hautaniemi Vera Raivola Senior Science Adviser Science Adviser Science Adviser tel tel tel sirpa.nuotio(at)aka.fi antti.hautaniemi(at)aka.fi vera.raivola(at)aka.fi Panels 1, 3 and 6 Panels 2, 4, 5 and 8 Panels 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 APPENDICES Appendix 1. Composition of expert panels Appendix 2. Feedback from panels

7 Liite 1 Bilaga 1 Appendix 1 Grant review panels Research Council of Health September 2013 call (Academy Projects, Academy Research Fellows, Postdoctoral Researchers, Clinical Researchers, Finnish-Japanese joint call in medical genomics, MEC-funded call on sport science) Panel 1 Professor Lightowlers, Robert, Newcastle University, UK Professor Brand, Thomas, Imperial College London, UK Professor Cuppen, Edwin, Hubrecht Institute and University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands Professor Gauguier, Dominique, INSERM, France Professor van der Maarel, Silvere, Leiden University Medical Center, Netherlands Dr Saada, Ann, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Israel Professor Speicher, Michael, Medical University of Graz, Austria Professor Veltman, Joris, Radboud University Medical Center, Netherlands Professor Worthington, Jane, University of Manchester, UK External reviewer: Professor de Knijff, Peter, Leiden University Medical Center, Netherlands Panel 2 Professor van Leeuwen, Hans, Erasmus, Netherlands Professor Arsenijevic, Yvan, University of Lausanne and Fondation Asile des Aveugles, Switzerland Professor Bulleid, Neil, University of Glasgow, UK Professor Helms, Bernd, Utrecht University, Netherlands Professor Kadler, Karl, University of Manchester, UK Professor Petrie, John, University of Glasgow, UK Professor Schenke-Layland, Katja, University Tübingen, Germany Professor Stojkovic, Miodrag, University of Kragujevac, Serbia External reviewers: Professor Haanen, John, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Netherlands Professor Duchen, Michael, University College London, UK Panel 3 Professor Isacke, Clare, Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre, UK Professor Carles, Joan, University Hospital Vall Hebron, Spain Professor Gissmann, Lutz, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Germany Professor Haanen, John, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Netherlands Associate Professor Hansen, Lise Lotte, Aarhus Universitet, Denmark

8 Associate Professor Marosi, Christine, Medical University of Vienna, Austria Dr Marra, Giancarlo, University of Zurich, Switzerland Professor Ryan, Anderson, University of Oxford, UK Associate Professor Wiemer, Erik, Erasmus University Medical Center, Netherlands Panel 4 Professor Krombach, Fritz, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany Professor Agerberth, Birgitta, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden Dr Cerf-Bensussan, Nadine, Instituti National de la Santé et de la Recherche, France Dr Durandy, Anne, INSERM, France Professor Geretti, Anna Maria; University of Liverpool, UK Professor Goodbourn, Steve, St George s University of London, UK Professor Hawrylowicz, Catherine, King s College London, UK Dr Lehuen, Agnes, INSERM, France Professor Maiden, Martin, University of Oxford, UK Professor Simmonds, Peter, University of Edinburgh, UK External reviewers: Professor Cuppen, Edwin, Hubrecht Institute and University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands Professor Hughes, Francis, King s College London, UK Professor Reichhart, Jean-Marc, University de Strasbourg, France Professor Walters, Matthew, University of Glasgow, UK Professor Worthington, Jane, University of Manchester, UK Panel 5 Professor Shaw, Pamela J, University of Sheffield, UK Professor Amor, Sandra, VU University Medical Center, Netherlands Dr Dodel, Richard, Philipps-University Marburg, Germany Professor Gilhus, Nils Erik, University of Bergen, Norway Associate Professor Kozicz, Tamas, Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands Professor Lundervold, Arvid, University of Bergen, Norway Professor Matthews, Paul, Imperial College London, UK Professor Pasinetti, Giulio, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, USA Professor Sirén, Anna-Leena, University of Würzburg, Germany Professor Spillantini, Maria, University of Cambridge, UK Panel 6 Professor Frøkjær, Sven, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Professor Caliceti, Paolo, University of Padova, Italy Professor Danielson, Helena, Uppsala Universitet, Sweden Professor Haycock, John, University of Sheffield, UK

9 Professor Hartmann, Rolf, Helmholtz Institute for Pharmaceutical Research Saarland, Germany Professor Klein, Jochen, Goethe University, Germany Professor Schmidt, Martina, University of Groningen, Netherlands Dean De Smedt, Stefaan, Ghent University, Belgium Professor Sylte, Ingebrigt, University of Tromsø, Norway Associate Professor Vistoli, Giulo, University of Milan, Italy Panel 7 Professor Kinman, Gail, University of Bedfordshire, UK Dr Batty, David, University College London, UK Professor Buntinx, Frank, KU Leuven, Belgium Dr Evans, Jonathan, University of Bristol, UK Professor Friis, Svein, Oslo University Hospital, Norway Professor Hultman, Christina, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden Professor Van Oyen, Herman, Scientific Institute of Public Health, Belgium Professor Rokne, Berit, University of Bergen, Norway Professor Sacker, Amanda, University College London, UK Professor Wagner, Cordula, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research NIVEL, Netherlands External reviewer: Professor Franks, Paul W., Lund University, Sweden Panel 8 Professor Wabitsch, Martin, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, Adipocyte Research Laboratory, University of Ulm, Germany Professor Ahlbom, Anders, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden Professor Avenell, Alison, University of Aberdeen, UK Professor Blaut, Michael, German Institute of Human Nutrition, Germany Professor Feskens, Edith, Wageningen University; Netherlands Professor Franks, Paul W., Lund University, Sweden Professor Hoffmann, Barbara, Heinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf, Germany Professor Kafatos, Anthony, University of Crete, Greece Dr Raaschou-Nielsen, Ole, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Denmark Professor Roche, Helen, Conway Institute of Biomolecular & Biomedical Research, Ireland External reviewers: Professor Allen, Ryan, Simon Fraser University, Canada Professor Ownby, Dennis, Georgia Regents University, USA Panel 9 Professor Norman, Jane, University of Edinburgh, UK

10 Professor Aspenberg, Per, Linköpings universitet, Sweden Professor Atar, Dan, Oslo University Hospital, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Norway Professor Casas, Juan P, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK Professor Diez-Perez, Adolfo, Salut Mar. Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain Professor Hindmarsh, Peter, University College London, UK Professor Hiort, Olaf, University of Lübeck, Germany Professor Pasterkamp, Gerard, Utrecht University, Netherlands Professor Walters, Matthew, University of Glasgow, UK External reviewers: Professor Burkhard, Fiona, Bern University Hospital, Germany Dr Cerf-Bensussan, Nadine, Instituti National de la Santé et de la Recherche, France Senior Lecturer Grupen, Christopher, University of Sydney, Australia Professor Hughes, Francis, King s College London, UK Dr. van der Ploeg, Hidde, VU University Medical Centre, Netherlands Professor Proctor, Gordon, King s College London Dental Institute, UK Professor Hughes, Francis, King s College London, UK Professor O Brien, Colm, Mater Hospital, Ireland Associate Professor Shaal, Shlomit, University of Louisville School of Medicine, USA Panel 10 Professor Mittnacht, Sibylle, UCL Cancer Institute, UK Professor Dantuma, Nico, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden Professor Etienne-Manneville, Sandrine, Institut Pasteur CNRS, France Dr Gavard, Julie, Institut Cochin CNRS, France Professor Gruenbaum, Yosef, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel Professor Müller, Anne, University of Zurich, Switzerland Professor Olson, Michael, Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, UK Dr Wagner, Erwin F., Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Oncológicas (CNIO), Spain Panel 11 Professor van Baak, Marleen, Maastricht University, Netherlands Dr Gill, Jason, University of Glasgow, UK Professor Fairclough, Stuart, Liverpool John Moores University, UK Professor emeritus Hopman-Rock, Marijke, Body@Work Research Center TNO and VU University Medical Center, Netherlands Professor Newham, Di, King s College London, UK Associate Professor Overgaard, Kristian, Aarhus University, Denmark Senior Researcher van der Ploeg, Hidde, VU University Medical Centre, Netherlands External reviewers: Professor Schelbert, Heinrich, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, USA Associate Professor Sebe, Niculae, University of Trento, Italy Professor Skelton, Dawn, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK

11 Panel 12 Professor Armour, Kathleen, University of Birmingham, UK Professor Cardon, Greet, Ghent University, Belgium Professor Ellaway, Anne, Medical Research Council University of Glasgow, UK Professor Memmert, Daniel, German Sport University, Germany Associate Professor Ottesen, Laila, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Professor Scheerder, Jeroen, University of Leuven, Belgium External reviewers: Professor Newham, Di, King s College London, UK Professor Shaw, Pamela J, University of Sheffield, UK

12 Liite 2 Bilaga 2 Appendix 2 September 2013 call, applications submitted to the Research Council for Health Feedback from the review panel members to the applicants The scientific quality of the applications in general was similar to that of other countries. The very best were clearly of a high quality and internationally competitive. However, there was a broad range in the quality of the applications. The panels observed some common weaknesses, addressing which would significantly improve most applications: Often, the research plans were not well structured and they needed improvement. Many plans lacked cohesion to a greater or lesser extent. The different parts of the plan have to interact with each other and with one or more overall objectives. Too often there were not enough details to judge the feasibility of the proposed projects. Preliminary data should be included into the plan in order for the panel to assess the feasibility of a research plan. Although it is important to give a suitable background, many research plans had too long background sections. The reviewers are particularly interested in the justifications and methodology of the current proposal (also data analyses). There was frequently a lack of linkages between the research questions and the research methods. There were several applications where the ideas appeared to be novel and of a very high standard, but the plans were poorly structured, unfocused and not always clear as to the aims or hypotheses. The statistical and data analysis plans were often inadequate. A common issue was the lack of suitable power calculations. In many research plans, they were simply absent; in others they were inadequate. Even one critical omission such as this will reduce the opportunity for funding. A big problem is the overambition of several projects, an unrealistic view of what can be done during the funding period. Often, less is more with a research plan! Furthermore, the plans were too often more like a collection of studies or a large research programme than having a clearly defined and focused goal with a well-planned schedule for the funding period. More emphasis is needed on what will be done in this particular proposal during the funding period and by whom, instead of what has been already done. It is also important to clearly indicate the data that have already been obtained and differentiate this from what is in process, and what will be done in the future. This will avoid confusion. International collaborations and mobility plans were often mentioned without coherent arguments why these have been chosen or planned. The panel members encourage researchers to publish in higher-ranking journals. To summarise, the applicants can become more competitive by international standards by writing a focused research plan with clearly defined goal and hypotheses, providing rationales and details for the methods, describing in detail the power calculations and data analyses and also by giving justifications for collaborations.