Skip to main content

Evaluation of applications

The Swedish Research Council for Sport Science (CIF) uses peer review, or expert assessment, to assess the relevance to sport and the scientific quality of the applications. Peer review means that well-qualified researchers in the same or related subject areas review the applications.

The Scientific Review Panel does the scientific assessment of the applications for research grants submitted to CIF. The panel has twelve members. They are appointed by the CIF board after consultation with the Swedish Research Council. The members are organised into three different evaluation groups. Together, they cover with their expertise relevant subject areas within CIF's broad definition of sports research. If the members consider that they do not possess the competence required to review a particular application, external reviewers are appointed.

All four members in one evaluation group assess and review each application unless there is a conflict of interest. Reviewers with a conflict of interest do not participate in the assessment of that application. If more than two of the reviewers in the evaluation group have reported conflicts of interest, an external examiner will be appointed.

Read more about the members of the Scientific Review Panel.

Avoiding conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest should be avoided in all situations. CIF has established guidelines for conflicts of interest (in Swedish) for the members of the review panel and the board members.

Assessment criteria

Relevance to sport

The evaluation group will first assess the proposal´s relevance to sport. If the proposal is considered not demonstrating relevance to sport, it will not proceed further in the assessment process. Read the CIF definition of sport and relevance to sport. 

Quality criteria

If a proposal is considered as relevant to sport, it will proceed to the next stage. The evaluation group will then assess the proposal based on four quality criteria. 

The following three criteria will each be assessed on a grading scale from 1 to 7. In addition, an overall grade is given.

  • Novelty and originality
  • Scientific quality of the proposed research
  • Qualifications of the main applicant

The fourth criterion is assessed on a grading scale from 1 to 3:

  • Feasibility

A feasibility grade of at least 2 is required for approval.

Grading scales

A. Novelty and originality (grade 1-7)
B. Scientific quality of the proposed research (grade 1-7)
C. Qualifications of the main applicant
D. Feasibility (scale 1-3)