How proposals are evaluated

• Admissibility (General Annex A): submission before the deadline via the Funding & Tenders Portal using the forms in the submission system; the application must be complete, readable, accessible and printable.
• A plan for exploitation and dissemination of results, including communication activities, is an admissibility condition for full applications; it is not required at the first stage of two-stage calls.
• Eligibility (Annex B), default consortium rule: at least three independent legal entities, each in a different country, with at least one in a Member State and two others in different Member States or Associated Countries. Affiliated entities do not count towards this minimum.
• Public bodies, research organisations and higher education establishments from Member States and Associated Countries must have a gender equality plan to be eligible.
• Admissibility and eligibility checks are carried out by EU staff; proposals are then allocated to a minimum of three experts (often more).
• Operational capacity is not a separate step: it is assessed by the experts within the criterion 'Quality and efficiency of the implementation'.
• Applicants complete an ethics self-assessment; projects with ethics issues undergo an ethics review to authorise funding and may be made subject to ethics requirements.

Sources: Horizon Europe Work Programme 2026-2027, Part 15 General Annexes (Annexes A, B, C, D, F) (European Commission, 2026-09-29 (current PDF on the Funding & Tenders Portal)); Horizon Europe Proposal Evaluation: Standard Briefing for experts, Version 14.0 (European Commission, 2026-04-15)

• Criteria (Annex D): Excellence; Impact; Quality and efficiency of the implementation. Scores are given per criterion; the listed aspects receive no separate score.
• Score scale: 0 fails or cannot be assessed, 1 poor, 2 fair, 3 good (a number of shortcomings), 4 very good (a small number of shortcomings), 5 excellent (any shortcomings minor). Half-marks may be given.
• Thresholds: 3 out of 5 per criterion; 10 out of 15 for the sum. Specific calls or topics may set other thresholds or weightings.
• Innovation Actions: the Impact score is weighted 1.5 for ranking only; thresholds are checked on the unweighted score.
• Definitions used by experts: a minor shortcoming does not affect the score; a shortcoming lowers the score but leaves the proposal fundable; a significant weakness lowers the score below threshold.
• Evaluation form V4.0 (12.11.2025) updated the Impact criterion following Work Programme 2026-2027; the Impact aspects now centre on the credibility of the pathways to the expected outcomes and impacts.
• Two-stage calls: stage 1 is scored on Excellence and Impact only (bold aspects in Annex D), threshold 4 each; details are in the guide 'From idea to grant'.

Sources: Horizon Europe Work Programme 2026-2027, Part 15 General Annexes (Annexes A, B, C, D, F) (European Commission, 2026-09-29 (current PDF on the Funding & Tenders Portal)); EU Grants: Evaluation form (HE RIA and IA), V4.0 (European Commission, Funding & Tenders Portal, 2025-11-12); Horizon Europe Proposal Evaluation: Standard Briefing for experts, Version 14.0 (European Commission, 2026-04-15)

• Individual evaluation: each expert reads and scores the proposal without discussing it, and completes an Individual Evaluation Report (IER); scores must match comments.
• Consensus group: the experts discuss and agree comments first, then scores; for full proposals they are told not to converge immediately on the average, for first-stage proposals the average is a starting point.
• The consensus group is moderated by EU staff (or an expert in some cases); a rapporteur drafts the Consensus Report (CR).
• Panel review: experts from the consensus groups and/or new experts check consistency of comments and scores, resolve minority views, endorse final scores, recommend a priority list and rank proposals with identical scores. The panel may hold hearings with applicants.
• Finalisation: the Commission or executive agency reviews the experts' results and puts together the final ranking list.
• Experts evaluate in a personal capacity, must declare conflicts of interest, and may not discuss proposals with anyone outside the consensus group or panel.

Sources: Horizon Europe Proposal Evaluation: Standard Briefing for experts, Version 14.0 (European Commission, 2026-04-15)

• Ex aequo rule (Annex F), applied group by group from the highest score down: (1) proposals covering aspects of the call not covered by higher-ranked proposals come first.
• (2) Among these, priority by Excellence score, then Impact; for Innovation Actions, Impact first, then Excellence.
• (3) If needed, gender balance among researchers with a leading role named in the researchers table; (4) then geographical diversity (number of Member States or Associated Countries not otherwise funded higher up the list, then budget).
• (5) If still undecided, the panel may use other factors linked to the call or Horizon Europe objectives, such as portfolio synergies or SME involvement, documented in the panel report. The ex aequo rule does not apply to the first stage of two-stage calls.
• Each applicant receives an evaluation result letter: invitation to grant preparation, reserve list, or rejection. An invitation is not a funding commitment; legal entity validation, financial capacity and exclusion checks follow.
• Where the call provides for it, proposals judged fundable but not funded for budget reasons receive a Seal of Excellence; some calls award a STEP Seal. Some topics may use partial randomisation as a selection procedure.
• Funded shares and above-threshold rates are covered in the guide 'Success rates'.

Sources: Horizon Europe Work Programme 2026-2027, Part 15 General Annexes (Annexes A, B, C, D, F) (European Commission, 2026-09-29 (current PDF on the Funding & Tenders Portal)); Horizon Europe Proposal Evaluation: Standard Briefing for experts, Version 14.0 (European Commission, 2026-04-15)

• Page limits (Horizon Europe default): 40 pages for a full RIA/IA application, 25 for CSA, 65 for Programme co-fund; with lump sum funding 45 (RIA/IA) and 28 (CSA); 10 pages at the first stage of two-stage calls.
• Over-long applications trigger a warning before the deadline; after the deadline excess pages are automatically made invisible and are not considered by evaluators.
• The proposal is a self-contained document: experts are instructed to ignore hyperlinks to information designed to extend the proposal past the page limit. Minimum font size 11 points (reference font Times New Roman).
• Experts evaluate each proposal as submitted, leaving aside its potential if changes were made, and must not recommend modifications such as extra partners, work packages or budget changes; shortcomings are reflected in lower scores.
• Blind evaluation continues under Work Programme 2026-2027 as the default for the first stage of two-stage calls (exceptions possible). Organisation names, acronyms, logos and personnel names must not appear in the abstract or Part B; direct identification makes the proposal inadmissible, indirect identification is assessed case by case.
• In blind evaluations the IT system hides Part A consortium data from experts; own publications may be cited only without signalling that they are authored by applicants.
• Erasmus+ (National Agency actions): experts must report the same or similar text in two or more applications in one selection round to the National Agency.

Sources: Horizon Europe Work Programme 2026-2027, Part 15 General Annexes (Annexes A, B, C, D, F) (European Commission, 2026-09-29 (current PDF on the Funding & Tenders Portal)); EU Grants: Application form (HE RIA and IA), V5.1 (European Commission, Funding & Tenders Portal, 2026-01-22); Horizon Europe Proposal Evaluation: Standard Briefing for experts, Version 14.0 (European Commission, 2026-04-15); 2026 Erasmus+ Guide for Experts on Quality Assessment, Actions managed by National Agencies, Version 1 (sections 3.2, 3.3, 4.1) (European Commission, DG EAC (copy published by the Swedish National Agency UHR), 2025-12-22)

• Work Programme 2027 (Commission Decision C(2026)4907): excellence is the sole criterion for Starting, Consolidator, Advanced, ERC Plus and Synergy Grants. Panels primarily evaluate the ground-breaking nature and ambition of the project and, at the same time, the intellectual capacity and creativity of the principal investigator(s).
• Starting, Consolidator and Advanced Grants: two steps with interviews at Step 2. Step 1 assesses Part I of the Scientific Proposal and the CV and Track Record; up to 44 proposals per panel are retained for Step 2. Step 2 assesses the complete Research Proposal.
• Page limits 2027: Part I up to 5 pages; Part II up to 7 pages (10 for Synergy); CV and Track Record up to 4 pages per principal investigator; references do not count towards these limits.
• Step 1 scores: A invited; A not invited (excellent but not ranked high enough); B (high quality, not sufficient for Step 2); C (not of sufficient quality). Step 2 scores: A (fully meets the criterion, recommended for funding if funds allow); B (meets some elements, not funded).
• Synergy Grants have three steps with interviews at Step 3; budgetary cut-offs of up to seven times (after Step 1) and up to three times (after Step 2) the indicative panel budget apply.
• Applicants may name up to three persons (four for Synergy) to be excluded from evaluating their proposal. All applicants receive an Evaluation Report with final panel score, ranking range, panel comment and the individual external assessments.
• Step 1 scores trigger restrictions on applying to later ERC calls; the 2027 rules are listed in the guide 'From idea to grant' (resubmission section).

Sources: ERC Work Programme 2027, Commission Decision C(2026)4907 (sections 1.4.3, 1.5, 1.6) (European Commission / ERC Scientific Council, 2026)

• Evaluation Form (HE MSCA) Version 2.2 (17 December 2025): scores range from 0 to 5 with a resolution of one decimal place, using the same descriptors from 'fails' to 'excellent'.
• Weighting: Excellence 50%, Impact 30%, Quality and efficiency of the implementation 20%.
• Overall threshold: 70 out of 100; weighting is used for the ranking and not to determine whether the proposal passed the threshold.
• The form states that specific calls or topics may set different thresholds and weightings; the call document of each MSCA action prevails.
• MSCA panels follow the Horizon Europe expert process (individual evaluation, consensus, panel review) described above.

Sources: Evaluation Form (HE MSCA), Version 2.2 (European Commission, Funding & Tenders Portal, 2025-12-17); Horizon Europe Proposal Evaluation: Standard Briefing for experts, Version 14.0 (European Commission, 2026-04-15)

• Cooperation Partnerships (Programme Guide 2026): Relevance 25, Quality of project design and implementation 30, Quality of partnership and cooperation arrangements 20, Impact 25. Minimum 70 points overall and half of each criterion (13, 15, 10, 13); no decimals, so half of 25 is rounded up to 13.
• Small-scale Partnerships (Programme Guide 2026): Relevance 30, Quality of design and implementation 30, Quality of partnership 20, Impact 20. Minimum 60 points overall and at least 15, 15, 10 and 10.
• Award criteria are not assessed if the proposal is rejected on other grounds; proposals passing the individual and overall thresholds are funded within the budget, others go on a reserve list or are declared unsuccessful.
• Score bands for experts (Guide for Experts 2026): for a 30-point criterion, very good 26-30, good 21-25, fair 15-20, weak 0-14; for a 25-point criterion 22-25, 18-21, 13-17, 0-12.
• With two experts, the final score is a consolidated assessment without decimals. If the two totals differ by 30 points or more, the National Agency asks a third expert (unless both scored below threshold) and the most extreme assessment is discarded.
• Depending on the National Agency, Relevance may be assessed first; if it falls below its minimum, the evaluation may stop and the proposal be rejected.
• For fixed lump sums (Cooperation Partnerships, Small-scale Partnerships) experts cannot propose a different lump sum. Thresholds of other actions (CBHE, Erasmus Mundus, European Universities) are listed in the guide 'From idea to grant'.

Sources: Erasmus+ Programme Guide 2026, Part B: Cooperation Partnerships (award criteria) (European Commission, Version 1, 2025-11-12); Erasmus+ Programme Guide 2026, Part B: Small-scale Partnerships (award criteria) (European Commission, Version 1, 2025-11-12); Erasmus+ Programme Guide 2026, Part C, Step 2: Check compliance with the criteria (award criteria) (European Commission, Version 1, 2025-11-12); 2026 Erasmus+ Guide for Experts on Quality Assessment, Actions managed by National Agencies, Version 1 (sections 3.2, 3.3, 4.1) (European Commission, DG EAC (copy published by the Swedish National Agency UHR), 2025-12-22)

• Stage 1: a Projektskizze (project outline) is submitted to the Projektträger (programme management agency named in the guideline) via easy-Online by the date in the guideline; the date is usually not an Ausschlussfrist (strict cut-off), but late outlines may not be considered.
• Length and format are set per guideline, for example a maximum of ten pages, Arial 11 pt, 1.5 line spacing in the E-Fuels guideline of 22.09.2026.
• Assessment criteria are listed in each guideline. In the AkadeMINT guideline (30.09.2026), outlines that meet the formal requirements are assessed with the participation of an externes Begutachtungsgremium (external expert panel); in the E-Fuels guideline criteria include fit with the funding aims, scientific-technical quality, methodology, consortium, impact and efficient use of resources.
• Stage 2: authors of positively assessed outlines are invited to submit a förmlicher Förderantrag (formal funding application), which must implement any Auflagen (conditions) set by the expert panel or the Projektträger.
• The formal application is checked in depth, including the work plan and the necessity, appropriateness and eligibility of the requested funds; the decision follows this final review.
• Neither an outline nor a formal application creates a Rechtsanspruch (legal entitlement) to funding; in the AkadeMINT guideline, deviations from format and content rules can lead to a lower rating or exclusion.

Sources: Richtlinie zur Förderung von Projekten zum Thema 'Innovative Herstellung von E-Fuels und CCU-basierten Vorprodukten', section 7.2 (Bundesministerium für Forschung, Technologie und Raumfahrt (BMFTR), Bundesanzeiger 2026-09-22); Richtlinie zur Förderung von Projekten zur MINT-Studienorientierung und -begleitung (AkadeMINT), section 7.2 (Bundesministerium für Forschung, Technologie und Raumfahrt (BMFTR), Bundesanzeiger 2026-09-30)

• The only criterion for DFG funding decisions is scientific quality. General review criteria: quality of the project; objectives and work programme; applicants' qualifications; work and research environment. Coordinated programmes add quality and added value of cooperation.
• Reviewers are selected per proposal by the responsible programme officers from the national and international research community; there is no fixed pool. Usually two independent written reviews; a third in justified cases or by default for highly interdisciplinary, high-budget and Reinhart Koselleck proposals; proposals up to EUR 200,000 may receive one detailed review.
• Review boards meet generally four times a year; rapporteurs from the board are assigned to each proposal, discussion focuses on proposals with controversial reviews, and clear-cut cases are often decided by written procedure outside meetings.
• After quality assurance by the Head Office, the recommendation goes to the Joint Committee or its nominated Grants Committee, where researchers are always in the majority.
• Reviewer identities are not disclosed to applicants. After the decision, applicants receive anonymised reviews via the elan portal.
• Reviewers cannot be excluded in the proposal text; applicants may raise specific concerns or suggest reviewers in a confidential letter, and the DFG decides independently.

Sources: How does the DFG decide on funding proposals? (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), accessed 2026-10-19); How the DFG makes funding decisions (individual grants) (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), accessed 2026-10-19); Work of the review boards (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), accessed 2026-10-19); Questions on the review (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), accessed 2026-10-19)

• The coordinator submits the request following the deadlines and procedure set out in the evaluation result letter.
• Deadline: within 30 days of accessing the evaluation results; results not opened in the Funding & Tenders Portal within 10 days of sending count as accessed.
• The request must relate to one specific proposal and is limited to 7,000 characters.
• An evaluation review committee gives an opinion on procedural aspects and may recommend either confirmation of the initial evaluation or a re-evaluation, carried out primarily by evaluators not involved before.
• Experts are told that applicants read their comments and can challenge the evaluation through this procedure, which is why reports must avoid unverified categorical statements and scores that do not match comments.
• ERC: means of redress are set out in the ERC Rules of Submission and Evaluation under Horizon Europe, referenced in the ERC Work Programme 2027.
• Time to inform and time to grant are covered in the guide 'From idea to grant'.

Sources: Horizon Europe Work Programme 2026-2027, Part 15 General Annexes (Annexes A, B, C, D, F) (European Commission, 2026-09-29 (current PDF on the Funding & Tenders Portal)); Horizon Europe Proposal Evaluation: Standard Briefing for experts, Version 14.0 (European Commission, 2026-04-15); ERC Work Programme 2027, Commission Decision C(2026)4907 (sections 1.4.3, 1.5, 1.6) (European Commission / ERC Scientific Council, 2026)

• The ESR is sent with the evaluation result letter and is based on the consensus report; in most cases ESR and consensus report are identical.
• Comments explain shortcomings but contain no recommendations and no comparative statements about other proposals; each score is meant to be justified by the comments of that criterion.
• The same weakness should not be penalised under two criteria, so the criterion where a weakness appears indicates which part of the proposal it concerns. The score descriptors (shortcoming vs significant weakness) indicate how serious an issue was rated.
• Resubmissions within 2 years declared in the proposal forms: where comparable conditions apply, experts must specifically justify comments and scores that differ significantly from the previous ESR. For two-stage calls, differences between stage 1 and stage 2 ESRs must also be justified.
• Lump sum proposals: ESR comments on the detailed budget table are given only for proposals invited to grant preparation, placed on the reserve list, or rejected partly for significant over- or underestimation of costs.
• Other funders: ERC Evaluation Reports include the panel comment and individual external reviews; Erasmus+ experts write a summary with strengths, weaknesses and possible improvements for failed proposals; DFG applicants receive the anonymised reviews.

Sources: Horizon Europe Proposal Evaluation: Standard Briefing for experts, Version 14.0 (European Commission, 2026-04-15); Horizon Europe Work Programme 2026-2027, Part 15 General Annexes (Annexes A, B, C, D, F) (European Commission, 2026-09-29 (current PDF on the Funding & Tenders Portal)); ERC Work Programme 2027, Commission Decision C(2026)4907 (sections 1.4.3, 1.5, 1.6) (European Commission / ERC Scientific Council, 2026); 2026 Erasmus+ Guide for Experts on Quality Assessment, Actions managed by National Agencies, Version 1 (sections 3.2, 3.3, 4.1) (European Commission, DG EAC (copy published by the Swedish National Agency UHR), 2025-12-22); Questions on the review (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), accessed 2026-10-19)