Rules and Guidelines for Distributed Peer Review process for the Nordic call for exploratory networks within humanities and social sciences (NOS-HS)
The DPR process
Applications submitted to the NOS-HS network call will be evaluated using the Distributed Peer Review (DPR) model. Distributed peer reviews allocate the responsibility for evaluation across the applicant community. This model draws on the expertise among the applicants, and by submitting an application, you also agreed to act as a reviewer.
Timeline for the evaluation process
- 15 April 2026 call closes
- 22 April 2026 webinar for evaluators
- 23–29 April check of potential conflict of interest
- 8 May – 16 June 2026 evaluation
- Deadline for submission of assessment in the application portal: 16 June 2026. This is a firm deadline; missing it will result in automatic rejection of the applicant's submission.
Eligibility requirements with reference to the review process
By submitting an application, the applicants (and members of consortia) accept the following terms and conditions:
- By submitting a network proposal, applicants agree to act as peer reviewers and to have their proposal assessed by other applicants to the call.
- Each project leader will be assigned up to ten proposals to review.
- Some individual participants of the consortium may also be asked to carry out a limited number of reviews.
- Applicants who fail to complete and submit all assigned assessments by 16 June 2026 will have their proposal automatically rejected.
- If reviewer’s assessment are found to be of consistently poor quality, their own proposal may be removed from the competition.
Review system
Distributed peer review is conducted using the NordForsk Application Portal. The portal automatically saves your input (only with a stable internet connection). Clicking “Continue workflow” at the top of the review form, will submit your assessment. Further details on the portal’s functionality are available upon logging in.
Emails from no-reply@nordforsk.org will notify you of the proposals assigned to you. Please log in to the NordForsk application portal and ensure you have access to applications and the assessment form.
In case of technical difficulties, please contact NordForsk technical support: support@nordforsk.org
Rules and guidelines for reviewers
- Throughout the entire review process, you are expected to act in an ethical manner. This includes maintaining confidentiality as well as ensuring that the feedback you provide on each assigned proposal is responsible and appropriate.
- Reviewers must carefully read all assigned proposals, evaluate and rank them, and provide written feedback that will be shared with the applicants, in accordance with the Nordforsk funding guidelines and the call specific rules and guidelines. Assessments must be submitted within the deadline set by NordForsk.
- As a reviewer, you are required to submit your comments anonymously.
- The use of generative AI tools such as OpenAI ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, or others in the preparation of reviews is not allowed due to the confidentiality requirements of the review process.
Conflict of interest
NordForsk will consider conflicts of interest (COI) when assigning proposals to reviewers. In the first stage of the DPR, reviewers will have the opportunity to identify and report any conflicts of interest. The reviewers may not have a vested interest in the applications or a close relationship with the applicants (see NordForsk’s Guidelines on Impartiality). The declaration of conflicts of interest must not be used as a means of lowering the number of reviews you are required to complete within the specified deadline.
Guidelines for the written feedback to applicants
As a reviewer, you are expected to provide constructive feedback using clear, factual, and respectful language. Please note that your comments will be shared with applicants exactly as submitted, without any editing.
Confidentiality and integrity
All application materials and reviews are confidential and must be handled, stored, and destroyed securely. Reviewers must not disclose any information about the applications or the review process to third parties. If you are contacted by an applicant or any other party regarding the review process, please do not engage and forward the inquiry to NordForsk. Misappropriating ideas, results, observations, or data from applications constitutes research misconduct. NordForsk takes any allegations of research misconduct seriously.
Assessment criteria
Each application is assessed against six criteria, which together determine the overall score. The guiding questions are intended to support the evaluation of the proposal and the assignment of scores.
1. Contribution to the aim and thematic framework of the call
- The extent to which the proposed network is appropriate to the aims of the call.
2. Network quality
- Clarity of objectives, network description, research questions/hypotheses.
- Potential to formulate new common research directions and goals.
- Ethical and gender considerations and how these will be handled.
- Credibility of expected outcomes.
- The extent to which the network explores innovative elements in research.
3. Nordic added value
- Potential to create benefits for the Nordic research ecosystem (such as enhancing scientific excellence; achieving necessary critical mass and/or expertise; building competence; supporting mobility and networking; facilitating early-career researchers’ opportunities for building lasting Nordic networks and future international careers; enhancing cost-effectiveness by sharing data and research infrastructure; developing or utilising particular Nordic strengths or expertise, phenomena or data).
4. Quality of the research team
- Experience, expertise, and merits in relation to delivering the proposed results.
- Complementarity of the participants and extent to which the consortium as whole brings together the necessary expertise and recourses, including how the consortium partners jointly contribute to the network.
- Early-career researchers’ role as key researchers in the network.
5. Feasibility
- Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, including extent to which financial and personnel resources are appropriately assigned in line with the objectives and deliverables.
- Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk management.
6. Communication and dissemination
- Quality of plans for communication, dissemination and knowledge exchange within and beyond the network.
7. Overall grade
- Based on the above criteria and justifications, what overall grade do you suggest for the proposal? If you weigh the criteria differently, please explain your rationale.
The evaluation process includes the assignment of a numerical grade for each criterion, accompanied by written feedback explaining the strengths and/or weaknesses underlying the assigned grade. The written justifications will be shared with the applicant without any editing.
Aim of the call and thematic framework
Begin your review by carefully reading the aim and thematic framework of the call:
Nordic call for exploratory networks within humanities and social sciences (NOS-HS) seeks to facilitate collaboration among researchers with strong potential for synergy across the Nordic countries. The call aims to encourage the next generation of Nordic scholars to build new or stronger cross-border research links, thereby strengthening the quality, innovative character, international competitiveness, and societal impact of Nordic research.
The call is an open call for bottom-up, curiosity-driven research networks within the humanities and social sciences in the Nordic region. The call aims to provide an opportunity for early-career researchers (2–7 years after completion of their PhD) to build and lead Nordic networks, support novelty and creativity in research network activities, and promote Nordic added value in research.
The novelty value of the proposed network and its activities should be clearly articulated in the application. The call strongly encourages that the majority of key researchers in the network are early-career researchers.
Nordic added value
Nordic added value is in the positive effects that are generated through common Nordic solutions, such as activities that manifest and develop a sense of Nordic community; activities that increase Nordic competence and competitiveness; activities that strengthen the Nordic international influence; and activities that foster equal and balanced social, economic, and environmental interaction and development in the Nordic region.
Applicants should elaborate on how the project will create Nordic added value, and this will be assessed as part of the proposal assessment. NordForsk has devised indicators of Nordic added value contributing to the Nordic research ecosystem and society.
Network applications should reflect on how they would contribute to enhancing Nordic strengths and addressing Nordic challenges or needs, and, if appropriate, the sustainability of the network after the project period has ended, including options or plans for further co-operation.
Summarise key strengths and weaknesses
The review should focus on describing both the proposal’s key strengths and weaknesses. This helps the applicant identify which elements of the project are particularly strong and which may benefit from further development.
The review should concentrate on the most significant strengths and weaknesses. Avoid suggesting that a minor shortcoming was the decisive reason for a low grade.
Be objective
Keep your evaluation impartial. Comment on the proposal as specifically as possible and avoid general or vague remarks that could apply to almost any proposal. If necessary, support your critique with references.
The review should focus on the proposal, not on the applicants. For example, avoid formulations such as “The PI did not…”. Instead, write “The proposal does not…”.
Tactical scoring
Proposals will be assigned to reviewers in such a way that a reviewer’s assessment of other applications has no influence on the outcome of their own proposal.
Proposals submitted to the call are divided into two separate application pools, which do not compete with each other. Reviewers are likewise divided into two groups: Reviewer Group 1 evaluates applications in Application Pool 1, and Reviewer Group 2 evaluates applications in Application Pool 2. Thus, reviewers´evaluations are independent of the funding allocation in their own pool.
Be concise
Your written feedback does not need to be long. A few sentences can be sufficient if they are clear and informative. However, do not write only a single, very general comment, as this is not useful for the applicant. Do not summarise the application. Instead, provide evaluative comments.
Be professional and constructive
Use appropriate and respectful language. Avoid inappropriate, offensive, sarcastic, or insulting expressions, even if you believe the proposal could be significantly improved.
Write in complete sentences and aim for correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
Remember that your feedback will be shared with the applicants without editing, and you are solely responsible for the content and integrity of your comments.
Numerical Rating
The NordForsk grading scale ranges from 7 (Outstanding) to 1 (Poor). It is essential that the numerical score is fully aligned with the written assessment. When ensuring that the score and the written evaluation are consistent, please use the definitions in the NordForsk`s scale of grades.
| Grade | |
| 7 | Outstanding: Exceptionally strong application with negligible weaknesses. The proposal makes an outstanding contribution to the aims of the initiative. |
| 6 | Excellent: Very strong application with negligible weaknesses. The proposal makes an excellent contribution to the aims of the initiative. |
| 5 | Very good: Very good application with minor weaknesses. The proposal makes a significant contribution to the aims of the initiative. |
| 4 | Good: Good applications with some weaknesses. The proposal makes a good contribution to the aims of the initiative. |
| 3 | Fair: Some strengths, but also moderate weaknesses. The proposal makes some contribution to the aims of the initiative. |
| 2 | Weak: A few strengths, but with at least one major weakness or several mi nor weaknesses. The proposal makes limited contribution to the aims of the initiative. |
| 1 | Poor: Very few strengths, several major weaknesses. The proposal makes little or no contribution to the aims of the initiative. |
After completing your reviews
Read carefully through all your comments. If they do not seem helpful and constructive to the applicant, revise them.
Ensure that the strengths and weaknesses you mention align with the quality reflected in the score. Avoid situations where no weaknesses are identified despite assigning a low score.
Remember to submit your evaluations before the deadline.
Useful links
Contact
Sampsa Kaataja
sampsa.kaataja@nordforsk.org
Bodil Aurstad
bodil.aurstad@nordforsk.org