Review Procedures: Division of Mathematics and Physical Sciences
The review for projects in the Division of Mathematics and Physical Sciences is divided into four sub-fields:
Physical Sciences, Astronomy, Earth Sciences, and Mathematics, Computer Science and Statistical Science. The review process consists of two stages:
- First Round Peer Review:
The review is conducted mainly by external experts. Each proposal is scored based on the content of the proposal and the past performance of the Project PI(s).
- Second Round Panel Review:
Each sub-field panel consists of 2-5 senior experts (primarily individuals working outside of Taiwan). Taking into consideration the comments from the first round of review and the review criteria of each type of proposal, each panelist reviews 3-6 applications, which are discussed on a case-by-case basis via video conferencing and ranked by sub-field.
Review Procedures: Division of Life Sciences
The review for projects in the Division of Life Sciences consists of two stages.
- First Round Peer Review:
Each application is reviewed by three experts (primarily international).
- Second Round Panel Review:
The applications are divided into sub-fields based on their content. Experts of each sub-field constitute a review panel. Each application is reviewed by up to two panelists and each panelist reviews 7-8 applications. Keeping in mind the comments from the first round of review, each panelist provides their own written report and then all applications are discussed on a case-by-case basis via video conferencing. All applications are scored and ranked by all panelists.
Review Procedures: Division of Humanities and Social Sciences
The review for projects in the Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences consists of three stages.
- Pre-review: The Humanities and Social Sciences Vice President and a Deputy Executive Secretary of the Central Academic Advisory Committee invite internal and external experts to constitute a review panel. Those selected for the panel are experts of sub-fields in line with the applications received for the year. The list of reviewers for each application is jointly decided at this stage.
- First Round Peer Review:
Each application is reviewed by three experts (domestic and international), who will provide written comments.
- Second Round Panel Review:
The panelists review all applications keeping in mind the comments from the first round of review to determine a recommended list of projects.
Review Criteria – Summary
- How significant is the specific problem to be addressed?
- To what extent is the idea innovative?
- What is the extent of anticipated impact?
- How feasible is the Research Plan and proposed approach?
- Do the applicants have relevant expertise? Are they committed?
- Is the proposed project internationally competitive?
Academia Sinica Rules on Conflict of Interest and
Confidentiality for Reviewers
In any of the circumstances listed below, a panelist or reviewer must decline to review an application.
- A panelist or reviewer has, or has had, a personal relationship with the applicant.
- A panelist or reviewer was a doctoral thesis supervisor of the applicant, or has supervised the applicant as a postdoctoral fellow.
- A panelist or reviewer has published in collaboration with the applicant within the last five years, especially as a primary co-author.
- A panelist or reviewer is involved in any situation they consider to be a conflict of interest with the applicant.
Confidentiality
To ensure the confidentiality of the review process, Academia Sinica will provide the final results of the review to the applicants. Each panelist or reviewer agrees not to disclose to others information associated with the review, including discussions and results arising from the review meetings, without prior authorization by Academia Sinica.