The person responsible for the subject at the DFG Head Office selects suitable and competent reviewers for the proposal who have the necessary overarching familiarity with current research in the respective field. Special care must be taken to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest(interner Link) that can arise in connection with close scientific cooperation, competitive relationships, teacher/student relationships or mutual review processes.

Reviewers are selected by the DFG's programme officers responsible based on their subject-specific expertise and taking into account thematic, theoretical and methodological aspects. The DFG's programme officers possess subject-related expertise in the area they are responsible for, usually a doctorate in the discipline. If a proposal involves multiple disciplines or an interdisciplinary approach, the relevant research areas at the DFG Head Office coordinate with each other.

When selecting reviewers, the DFG's programme officers do not rely on a static pool of individuals but look for suitable reviewers within the relevant subject community, both nationally and internationally, for each new proposal received. 

• Programme contacts(interner Link)

The DFG Guidelines for Avoiding Conflicts of Interest(interner Link) contain a list of circumstances that may give rise to the appearance of a conflict of interest. In all funding programmes and at every stage of the processing of a proposal, the DFG Head Office checks whether a potential conflict of interest exists in relation to individuals involved. There are certain clear-cut instances which exclude a person as a reviewer, e.g. close scientific cooperation, teacher/student relationships and first-degree relatives. 

The DFG is not able to verify all circumstances that may give rise to the appearance of a conflict of interest, so it is always dependent on the assistance of all those involved. 

When they are requested to provide a review, reviewers are explicitly informed of the DFG’s conflict of interest criteria; when they submit their review they must confirm there is no conflict of interest. Anyone who does not disclose a possible conflict of interest is in breach of good research practice, which may result in proceedings being initiated against them due to scientific misconduct.

In order to be able to check and avoid potential conflicts of interest at the reviewer selection stage, the relevant information is requested in the respective proposal (e.g. current cooperation partners).

Care is also taken to ensure that there is no appearance of a conflict of interest on the part of employees at the DFG Head Office. For example, for at least the first three years after moving from a research institution to the DFG, Head Office staff are not permitted to process individual proposals submitted by their former colleagues or supervisors and, in particular, they are not permitted to select reviewers for such proposals.

At least two independent reviews must be obtained for all proposals. In order to avoid overburdening reviewers, an additional review is only obtained in justified cases. In the case of proposals which are highly interdisciplinary in nature or involve significant financial resources, and/or the prestigious Reinhardt Koselleck projects, the decision may be made to obtain three reviews by default. By way of an exception, a single detailed external review is sufficient in the case of proposals totalling up to €200,000.

In the case of so-called coordinated programmes, proposals are reviewed by panels. See also The decision-making process under coordinated programmes(interner Link).

After the review stage, the reviews and the proposal itself are submitted to a review board(interner Link). Review board members are researchers who have been elected by the communities. The review boards are responsible for undertaking a comparative evaluation of all proposals submitted in “their” subject areas and for ensuring the quality of the reviews submitted. The review board considers the reviewers’ comments and the relevance of their arguments. Bearing in mind the financial possibilities, the review boards prioritise the proposals and draw up a funding or rejection recommendation for each one. This comparative evaluation and the need to keep within the budget may mean that the recommendations made by review boards differ from the votes put forward by the reviewers.

The reviews are seen by the review board(interner Link) and the decision-making body. After the final decision has been made, applicants receive the reviews in anonymised form via the elan portal. The reviewers also receive the other reviews in anonymised form for information purposes. Nobody else gets to see or request the reviews.

Reviewers assess a proposal based on the following general criteria, which you will find in the General Guidelines for Reviews(interner Link):

• Quality of the project
• Objectives and work programme
• Applicants’ qualifications
• Work and research environment

In the case of coordinated programmes, the quality and added value of the cooperation is also taken into consideration.

For some programmes there are special “Guidelines for the Review”: these can be found among the relevant forms and guidelines(interner Link).

Anyone who forwards documents of their own accord without the consent of the DFG Head Office is in breach of confidentiality and good research practice. This may result in proceedings being initiated against them due to scientific misconduct.

The involvement of another person can be a useful exercise in order to expand one’s own subject-specific expertise and/or to introduce somebody else to the review process at an early stage of their career.

However, such a step is only possible with the prior written consent of the DFG Head Office subject to the following conditions:

• The review must not simply be delegated.
• The other person must have subject-specific qualifications and there must be no appearance of a conflict of interest.
• The DFG Head Office forwards the proposal documents to the third party and records them in the database as a person providing the review. 
• The primary reviewer who was originally requested retains responsibility for the content of the jointly prepared review.

Exception: If another subject area is to be involved, the process is carried out on an equal footing: in this case, the two subject areas are jointly responsible for the review.

No, the use of generative models in the preparation of reviews is inadmissible in any case due to the confidentiality of the review process. Documents provided for review are confidential; in particular, they may not be used 

as input for generative models. Anyone who does not comply with this rule is in breach of good research practice. This may result in proceedings being initiated against them due to scientific misconduct.

• Press Release – AI and ChatGPT in Science and the Humanities – DFG Formulates Guidelines for Dealing with Generative Models for Text and Image Creation(interner Link)
• Statement by the DFG Executive Committee on the use of AI(Download)

The principles of good research practice(interner Link) must be observed during the review process, too. If a reviewer violates the principles of confidentiality, for example, this is treated as a case of scientific misconduct.

Every individual is biased in different ways and to differing degrees. This applies in the area of research, too, and to researchers who strive for objectivity and evidence. 

The DFG provides its reviewers and committee members with materials to raise awareness of the need to mitigate bias, including a short film(externer Link). These materials are also used in specific review situations as required.

• Further information(interner Link)

Funding proposals submitted to the DFG are assessed based on scientifically relevant criteria alone. At the same time, any special and unavoidable personal circumstances pertaining to an applicant are taken into account exclusively in their favour (e.g. periods of childcare or periods of absence due to health), if details of such circumstances are supplied voluntarily.

In addition to scientific funding criteria, equity and diversity(interner Link) in research are also relevant to the review in the DFG’s coordinated programmes.