1-2: Low originality.
3: Approved, conventional ideas.
4: Good, with creative elements, but still relatively conventional.
5: Very good, novel, and creative ideas in relation to the covered area.
6: Excellent, innovative, and creative ideas in relation to the covered area.
7: Outstanding, innovative, and creative ideas in relation to the covered area.

1-2: Weak plan or setup.
3: Approved, with some systematics, but with unclear or very general descriptions. Weak support in literature or previous research.
4: Good description and coherence regarding problem, theory, and analysis. Some support in literature or previous research.
5: Very good description and coherent planning regarding problem, theory, and analysis. Good support support in literature or previous research.
6: Excellent, thorough and coherent in all parts of the proposal. Very good support in literature or previous research.
7: Outstanding, thorough and coherent in all parts of the proposal. Remarkable support in literature or previous research.

1-2: Low scientific competence.
3: Acceptable scientific competence but a lack of experience in the specific research field.
4: Good level of competence and experience, both scientifically and content-wise, in the specific research field.
5: Very good competence and experience, both scientifically and content-wise, in the specific research field.
6: Excellent competence and experience, both scientifically and content-wise, in the specific research field.
7: Outstanding competence and experience, and scientifically world-leading in the specific research field.

1: Not feasible to conduct the project according to the plan and budget presented.

2: Fully realistic to conduct the project according to the plan and budget presented.

3: Good preconditions and entirely realistic to conduct the project according to the plan and budget presented.