Evaluation

A selection based on excellence

The image of excellence associated with the FNRS results both from its policy of encouraging scientific excellence and from the rigorous procedures put in place to select the best researchers, as well as the best projects to finance. Evaluation constitutes the very heart of the activity of the F.R.S.-FNRS. 

The selection of files submitted to the F.R.S.-FNRS is carried out on the basis of scientific excellence and is based on a peer evaluation, based on several principles: excellence, transparency, confidentiality, and ethical considerations, as well as on established criteria (known to the applicants) for each type of financing instrument.

Each year, the FNRS organizes numerous calls for projects and juries covering all scientific fields (Life and Health Sciences, Exact and Natural Sciences, Human and Social Sciences), including two main calls: 

  • the “Grants & Fellowships” call, which allows the financing of doctoral and postdoctoral mandates and fellowships (respectively 4 and 3 years) and permanent mandates of Qualified Researchers (indefinite-term contracts). It also includes the evaluation of promotion requests and five-yearly reports from permanent FNRS agents.
  • the “Credits & Projects” call, which allows researchers carrying out a research project to finance scientific and technical staff, equipment and cover various operating costs.

Regarding the evaluation methods, they may vary depending on the calls and juries organized by the FNRS, but, within the framework of its two main calls, the evaluation takes place in two stages. Initially, applications are evaluated remotely by international experts who submit their evaluation via the web platform e-space of the FNRS. Secondly, the Scientific Commissions (CS), meeting at the FNRS headquarters in Brussels, establish a consolidated ranking of the funding requests submitted, based on the remote evaluations collected. 

Finally, the FNRS Board of Directors makes the final decisions concerning the grants, based on the ranking provided by the CS and budgetary constraints. 

For the sake of transparency, the evaluation reports are sent to candidates at the end of the process (anonymously, with the final score awarded by the Commission). 

In addition, and in order to support researchers and evaluators, several guides are made available to them, in particular: the Evaluation guide, the Guide for Reviewers and the Guide for Applicants. In addition, the regulations of the Scientific Commissions/juries as well as their composition are also published.

Scientific commissions and selection procedures The FNRS and the Evaluation of Research

Guides

  • Guide for Applicants EN
  • Guide for Reviewers EN
  • Evaluation Guide EN  

Scientific commissions

Support committee

The Support Committee (COMA) is responsible for proposing to the FNRS Board of Directors the names of members, observers, as well as Presidents of the Scientific Commissions. In addition, based on its experience of the evaluation procedure, COMA can suggest possible improvements to this procedure.

Descriptor fields Experts for the FNRS

Scientific Commissions and Selection Procedures

The Scientific Commissions are divided into 13 thematic Scientific Commissions: 4 in Exact and Natural Sciences (SEN-1 to SEN-4), 4 in Life and Health Sciences (SVS-1 to SVS-4) and 5 in Human and Social Sciences (SHS-1 to SHS-5). A fourteenth Scientific Commission exercises its powers in the strategic field of sustainability through interdisciplinarity (Sustainability).

Structurally, each Scientific Commission is split into an International Scientific Commission (CS-INTL) and a Wallonia-Brussels Federation Scientific Commission (CS-FNRS Doctorates).

The International Scientific Commissions (CS-INTL): 

  • 14 CS-INTL are in charge of evaluating applications for the “Scholarships & Mandates” call (except at the doctoral level) and the “Credits & Projects” call; promotion requests and five-year reports (RQ) from permanent representatives. Each file (excluding RQ) receives, before the meeting, the opinion of remote experts outside FWB (between 3 and 5, depending on the financing instrument, validated by the President of the CS).
  • They are made up of 15 full members [1] excluding FWB (including the presidency) who evaluate, assign grades and rank the applications.
  • 3 to 5  observers  [2] from FWB universities are added. 

[1] 17 members for the CS-INTL in SEN-2, SHS-1 and SHS-3 which handle the highest number of files. 
[2] 1 per complete university (UCLouvain, ULB, ULiège) and possibility of having an additional member from UMONS and UNamur, depending on their scientific activity in the fields concerned.

The FNRS Doctorates Scientific Commissions (CS-FNRS Doctorates): 

  • 14 CS-FNRS Doctorates are in charge of doctoral level applications (including Doctoral Clinician Researchers), as part of the “Scholarships & Mandates” call.
  • The CS-FNRS Doctorates are made up of FWB members [1], as well as a HFWB President, also chairing the corresponding CS-INTL. Each project presented to the CS-FNRS Doctorates receives the opinion (remotely, before the CS meeting) of 2 expert-referees chosen by the candidates, and of a member of the corresponding CS-INTL, chosen by the F.R.S.-FNRS and validated by the President of the CS.

[1] 3 members per complete university (UCLouvain, ULB, ULiège), and the possibility of having up to two additional members from UMONS and UNamur, depending on whether or not the latter have activities/candidates in the field concerned and depending on the number of applications submitted by each of these institutions.