{"id":6117,"date":"2026-04-01T14:22:27","date_gmt":"2026-04-01T14:22:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/centrumforidrottsforskning.se\/?page_id=6117"},"modified":"2026-04-10T16:00:04","modified_gmt":"2026-04-10T16:00:04","slug":"evaluation-of-applications","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/centrumforidrottsforskning.se\/en\/evaluation-of-applications\/","title":{"rendered":"Evaluation of applications"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Evaluation of applications<\/p>\n<\/h1>\n

\n

This section provides details on the assessment process, grading system, and how conflicts of interest are managed<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n

Start<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p> <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Peer Review<\/h1>\n

The Swedish Research Council for Sport Science (CIF) utilises a peer review process, or expert assessment, to evaluate the scientific quality of submitted research applications. Peer review involves assessment by well-qualified researchers within the same or related research fields.<\/p>\n

CIF appoints a scientific review panel each year to evaluate submitted applications. The panel is divided into three review groups, each consisting of four members. Additionally, there is a supplementary review group responsible for assessing applications for funding for associations and networking.<\/p>\n

The members of the panel are appointed by the board in consultation with the Swedish Research Council.<\/p>\n

The reviewers collectively possess expertise across relevant subject areas within CIF’s broad definition of sports research. If the panel considers that they lack the necessary qualifications to evaluate a specific application, external reviewers are brought in for that assessment.<\/p>\n

Each application is reviewed by all four members of its designated review panel, unless a member has a conflict of interest. Reviewers with conflicts of interest are prohibited from evaluating the application or participating in any discussions regarding it throughout the review process. If more than two reviewers in a panel declare conflicts of interest, an external reviewer will be engaged.<\/p>\n

Learn more about the appointment process and the members of the scientific review panel.<\/a><\/p>\n

Assessment criteria<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

Relevance to sport<\/h3>\n

The evaluation group will first assess the proposal\u00b4s relevance to sport. If the proposal is considered not to demonstrate relevance to sport, it will not proceed further in the assessment process. Read <\/span>the CIF definition of sport and relevance to sport.\u00a0<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Quality criteria<\/span><\/h3>\n

If a proposal is considered being relevant to sport, it will proceed to the next stage. The evaluation group will then assess the proposal based on four quality criteria.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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

    \n
  • Novelty and originality<\/li>\n
  • Scientific quality of the proposed research<\/li>\n
  • Qualifications of the main applicant<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    The fourth criterion is assessed on a grading scale from 1 to 3:<\/p>\n

      \n
    • Feasibility<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      A feasibility grade of at least 2 is required for approval.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n