DPU's review process aims to ensure the quality of the institute's research applications. The reviewers carry out a non-adjacent peer review reading of applications that are thought to be submitted after announcements to external funds. 

In December 2024, a new structure of the internal Review Panel was decided, to ensure a more streamlined administration of the workflow. From 2025 and on the members will no longer constitute a panel expected to attend 1-2 annual seminars with the purpose of competence development. Instead DPU’s reviewers will constitute a working group consisting of all qualified readers at DPU.

All professors (full and with special obligations), associate professors in the promotion programme towards professor and other qualified researchers are expected to take on the task of offering non-disciplinary feedback on applications. In addition to these, all DPU researchers with application experience may be asked to take on the task of offering review of research applications from a non-adjacent field.

A Head of review panel will no longer organize the work within the panel. Instead DPU’s research support will oversee matching applicant with reviewer as part of the application support. DPU’s research support will also inform the vipomatic-team about the appropriate hours to be allocated covering the review work.

The review process within the reviewer group An applicant can expect two rounds of readings/feedback per application from the same reviewer from a non-adjacent field.
Reviewers are allocated 5 hours for one reading and 7,5 hours for two readings per application.
When signing up as applicant by DPU’s research support, the research consultant will manage matchmaking between applicant and a reviewer from a non-adjacent field.

• For each application, one reviewer is selected among the group of reviewers at DPU. The reviewer will represent a non-adjacent research area.
• Reviewer should offer 1-2 readings/feedback of the application.
• When the selected reviewer has accepted the task, the research consultant establishes contact between applicant and reviewer.
• Applicant and reviewer must now agree on a specific time for the review(s). Applicant should receive the feedback no later than two days after forwarding the project proposal to reviewer.
• Peer reviewers should not deal with budget, language / grammar, CV and publication lists, whereas the following points of attention will usually be relevant:
  • Originality of the scientific idea
  • The rationale for research questions (state of the art)
  • The rationale for choosing method and theory and clarity in the description thereof
  • The rationale for analytical approach and the description thereof
  • Composition of the research group
• Reviews can be given in writing as well as orally or in a combination where both a text with comments (and possibly text suggestions) is delivered, and a meeting is held during which the application is discussed.

Review from a peer in one own’s field
In addition to the review facilitated by the review group, each application should undergo review from a peer who is close to the research theme of the proposed research. While the School assists applicant in being paired with a reviewer from a non-adjacent field, it is the applicant’s own responsibility to find a reviewer close to the field of the proposed research. This reviewer will not receive hours from the School, but is expected to offer feedback as part of the academic citizenship. If necessary, applicant’s Head of Department can help find a reviewer among department members.

Layman reading
In addition to the non-adjacent and the topic adjacent reviews, DPU’s research support also conducts layman reading (of most types of applications), which typically focuses on;

• Structure of the application
• Linguistic clarity and comprehensibility for the lay reader
• Weighting and degree of detail of the various elements of the application
• Compliance with call-specific requirements.

All potential applicants must contact the relevant Head of Department in good time (min. 2 months before application deadline) and discuss the relevance of the application in relation to both the School’s and the applicant's research strategy.