EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPOST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–20162
EvaluationGuideCallforPhDstudentshipsandPost-doctoralfellowships–2016
_____________May2016
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPOST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–20163
TABLEOFCONTENTS
TABLEOFCONTENTS.................................................................................................................3
ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................................4
1.Call........................................................................................................................................5PhDStudentships(BD)................................................................................................................................5Post-doctoralfellowship(BPD)...................................................................................................................5
2.ELEGIBILITY...........................................................................................................................52.1.EligibilityRequirementsofApplicants..................................................................................................5GeneralRequirements................................................................................................................................5SpecificRequirementsforBDApplicants.....................................................................................................6SpecificRequirementsforBPDApplicants...................................................................................................62.2.ApplicationEligibilityRequirements.....................................................................................................6MandatoryDocuments...............................................................................................................................6OptionalDocumentstosubmitwiththeApplicationForm..........................................................................8
3.PANELEVALUATIONPROCESS...............................................................................................8GuidingprinciplesforPeerreview..................................................................................................................8
3.1.FormationoftheEvaluationPanel.......................................................................................................93.2.Chairingtheevaluationprocess...........................................................................................................93.3.Remoteandpanelmeetingevaluation..............................................................................................10
Initialprocedure:Remoteevaluationofeachapplication...........................................................................10Subsequentprocedure:MeetingoftheEvaluationPanel............................................................................11
3.4.CommentstobeconveyedtoApplicants............................................................................................123.5.FinalMinutesoftheMeetingoftheEvaluationPanel........................................................................123.6.ConflictofInterest(CDI).....................................................................................................................133.7.Confidentiality...................................................................................................................................14
4.EVALUATIONCRITERIA........................................................................................................144.1.MeritoftheApplicant............................................................................................................................144.1.1.EvaluationoftheMeritoftheApplicantsinBDApplications.............................................................14Bonusesandspecificcasesforthesub-criterion“academicpath”(BD).......................................................164.1.2.EvaluationoftheMeritoftheApplicantsinBPDapplications...........................................................17Bonuses,penaltiesandspecificcasesinthepersonalcurriculumcriteria(BPD)..........................................184.2.MeritoftheWorkPlan(BDandBPDapplications)................................................................................194.3.MeritofHostconditions(BDandBPDapplications)..............................................................................20
AnnexI–ScientificAreas,adaptedfromtheFOSClassificationintheFrascatiManual..............21
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPOST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–20164
ABBREVIATIONS
BD–PhDstudentship
BPD–Post---doctoralfellowship
CDI---ConflictofInterest
FCT–FundaçãoparaaCiênciaeaTecnologia,I.P.
FAI–IndividualEvaluationReport
FPC–Pre-consensusReport
FAF–FinalEvaluationReport
ORCID–OpenResearcherandContributorIdentifier
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPOST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–20165
1.Call
In 2016 there will be a single call for applications, for: PhD studentships and Post-doctoral
fellowships.
PhDStudentships(BD)
Areaimedatapplicantsseeking todevelopresearchwork leading to theacademicdegreeofDoctor
andwhosatisfythenecessaryenrolmentconditionsforthecorrespondingcycleofstudies.
Asarule,thestudentshipisannual,renewableuptoamaximumoffouryears.Theworkplanmaybe
carried out fully or partially at a Portuguese institution (with studentships held in Portugal ormixed
studentships),orfullyataforeigninstitution(studentshipsheldabroad).
Post-doctoralfellowship(BPD)
AreintendedforPhDholders,preferablythosewhoobtainedthedegreelessthansixyearspriortothe
call,tocarryoutadvancedresearchatPortuguesescientificinstitutionsofrenownedcompetence.
Asarule,thedurationofthefellowshipisannual,renewableuptoamaximumofsixyears,pending
favourable evaluation at the end of the first three years. Exceptionally, and depending on budget
availabilityofthefundingagency,aBPDmayincludeperiodsabroad,uptoamaximumofoneyearfor
PhDsawardedinPortugalandsixmonthsforPhDsawardedabroad.
2.ELEGIBILITY
2.1.EligibilityRequirementsofApplicants
GeneralRequirements
• TobeaPortuguesecitizenoracitizenofanotherEuropeanMemberState.
• Tobeacitizenofathird-country,holdingavalidresidencepermit,ortohaveacquiredlong-term
residentstatus, inaccordancewiththetermssetout inLawno.23/2007of4July,amendedby
Lawno.29/2012of9August.
• Tobeacitizenofthird-countrieswithwhichPortugalhasreciprocityagreements.
• InthecaseofBPD,foreigncitizenswhoarenon-residents inPortugalmayalsoapply,as longas
the application is underwritten by an institution of the Portuguese science and technology
system,andtheworkplantakesplaceentirelyinPortugal;
• Onlycitizens(Portugueseorforeign)whoareabletoprovideproofofpermanentandregular
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPOST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–20166
residence in Portugal may apply to studentships/fellowships with work plans taking place
totallyorpartiallyinforeigninstitutions.
SpecificRequirementsforBDApplicants
• To have finished, at the time of application submission, aMasters degree, or alternatively, to
comply, at thatdate,with the conditions for access to the cycleof studies leading to thePhD
degree, specified in sub-paragraph a) or c) of article no. 30 of Decree-Law no.74/2006 of 24
March,amendedbyDecree-Lawno.115/2013of7August.
• Not have been selected for a studentshipwithin any FCT PhD programme, irrespective of type
(researchfellowship,PhDstudentshiporPhDstudentshipinindustry)orduration.
• Nothavebenefited fromaPhDstudentshiporPhDstudentship in industrydirectly financedby
FCT,irrespectiveofitsduration.
SpecificRequirementsforBPDApplicants
• TohaveconcludedaPhDdegreeattimeofapplicationsubmission.
• NothavebenefitedfromaBPDdirectlyfundedbyFCT,irrespectiveofitsduration.
2.2.ApplicationEligibilityRequirements
MandatoryDocuments
It is absolutely required, under penalty of the application not being accepted, to follow the
procedures described below and to upload the following documents to the application form
(applicabletoBDandBPDs).
• Toupdatetheapplicant´sCurriculumVitae(CV)ontheFCT-SIGorDeGóisplatforms.
• Toensurethatthescientificsupervisorassociateshim/herselftotheapplicationandthathe/she
lockshis/herCVtotheapplication.
• Toensurethattheco-supervisor(s)associatethemselvestotheapplicationandlocktheirCVs(this
procedureisonlyapplicableiftheapplicantoptstoindicateaco-supervisor(s)).
• Theworkplantobedeveloped(notethatattendanceof lecturesofadoctoralprogrammemay
notconsideredtobepartofaworkplan)
• Amotivationletter.
• Tworeferenceletters.
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPOST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–20167
It is also absolutely required,under penalty of the application not being accepted, to submit the
followingdocuments,foreachtypeofstudentship/fellowship.
PhDstudentships:
• Certificatesofall theacademicdegreesobtained, specifying the final grade,andpreferably, the
gradesobtainedinallsubjects.Thus,forpost-Bolognadegreesacertificateforthefirstandsecond
cycleofstudiesshouldbesubmitted,orincasethedegreeisnottwo-stage,anintegratedMasters
certificate; for “pre-Bologna” degrees both the first degree (Bachelors) andMasters certificates
shouldbesubmitted.
• ApplicantsthatdonotholdaMastersdegreewillhavetoprovideastatementattestingtotheir
capacity to carry out the cycle of studies, issued by the legally binding scientific body of the
university theywish to attend for their PhD. If applicantshavealreadybeenaccepted in the
PhD Programme for which they are applying for a studentship, proof of admission to the
programme is sufficient. Proof of enrolment in ongoing or completed PhD programmes,
wheretheinstitutionsthatawardthedegree/orrunthePhDprogrammearedifferenttothe
oneshownintheapplicationforthestudentship,willnotbeaccepted.
• In the case of academic degrees awarded by foreign institutions, registration of recognition of
suchdegreesandtherespectiveconversionsofthefinalscores(ifapplicable)tothePortuguese
grade scale, issued by the Direção-Geral do Ensino Superior or by a Portuguese public higher
education institution should be submitted (as regulated by Decree-Law no.341/2007 of 12
October). Alternatively, proof of recognition/equivalence of foreign qualifications to the
corresponding Portuguese qualifications, provided by a Portuguese public higher education
institution shouldbe submitted (as regulatedbyDecree-Lawno.283/83of 21 June).Applicants
are advised to visit the website of the Direção-Geral do Ensino Superior (DGES) for more
information:http://www.dges.mctes.pt.
• A document that the applicant considers to be as the most representative of his/her
scientific/professionalpath(seeevaluationcriteriabelow).
Post-doctoralfellowships:
• PhDcertificate.
• ForPhDdegreesobtainedataforeigninstitution,proofofregistration/equivalenceoftheforeign
qualification to the corresponding Portuguese qualification is mandatory. However, this may
occuruponprovisionalgrantingofthefellowshipduringthecontractingstage.
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPOST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–20168
• Therefore,eitherattheapplicationstage,or,later,duringthecontractingstage,itisnecessaryto
submit either proof of recognition of the PhD degree, issued by the Direção-Geral do Ensino
Superior or by a Portuguese public higher education institution (as regulated by Decree-Law
no.341/2007 of 12 October), or, alternatively, proof of recognition/equivalence of foreign
qualifications to the corresponding Portuguese qualifications, provided by a Portuguese public
highereducation institution shouldbe submitted (as regulatedbyDecree-Lawno.283/83of 21
June).
Applicants are advised to visit the website of the Direção-Geral do Ensino Superior (DGES) to
obtaintheregistration/equivalenceoftheforeignPhDdegree:http://www.dges.mctes.pt.
If registry/proof of equivalence is provided after application, it is necessary to attach the PhD
certificatetotheapplicationform,inoneofthefollowinglanguages:Portuguese,Spanish,English,
orFrench.
• Oneor twodocuments that theapplicantconsiders tobeas themost representativeofhis/her
scientific/professionalpath(seeevaluationcriteriabelow).
OptionalDocumentstosubmitwiththeApplicationForm
Itisoptionaltosubmitthefollowingdocuments:
• The applicant´s ORCID code. ORCID registration is recommended but does not substitute
submissionoftheup-to-dateCVontheFCT-SIGorDeGóisplatform.
• TheORCIDcodeofthescientificsupervisor(andco-supervisor(s),ifany).
• Proofofpermanentorlong-termresidentstatusinPortugal,whennecessary.Thisdocumentmay
besubmitteduponprovisionalawardingofthefellowship,duringthecontractingstage,aslong
asthedateofemissionisequaltoorprevioustotheapplicationdeadline,andifitisstillvalidat
thetimethecontractissigned.ApplicantsareadvisedtoreadtheApplicationGuide.
3.PANELEVALUATIONPROCESS
GuidingprinciplesforPeerreview
ItisFCT’smissiontoassuretheoverallscientificqualityofthepeerreviewprocess:
• Theevaluatorswillgiveprecedencetoqualityandoriginalityoverquantity.Thisprincipleapplies
irrespectivelyofwhatisatstake,beitacademicdegrees,CVs,careerprogressionorworkplans.
Thescientificcontentrepresentsthecoreofpeerreview,thusrequiringanintegratedviewofall
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPOST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–20169
thecomponentsofascientificcareer,orofaresearchworkplan.Countsofscientificpapersand
the cumulative impact factor, for example, do not in themselves or on their own allow the
identification of the characteristics that define the quality of scientific accomplishments and
career paths, namely, “originality”, “consistency and coherence”, and “contribution to the
advancementofknowledge”.
• Impartiality and transparency are the fundamental principles of evaluation decisions. All
applications are treated and evaluated in an impartial manner, grounded on their merit and
independentlyoforiginortheapplicant’sidentity.
3.1.FormationoftheEvaluationPanel
Theevaluationpanelsareconstitutedbyexpertsofrenownedscientificmeritandexperience,selected
toundertakeevaluationofthesubmittedapplications.Thefollowingcriteriaareappliedinsettingup
the panel, whenever possible: broad subject and multidisciplinary range, gender balance and
institutionaldiversity.
Eachpanelischaired,oninvitationbyFCT,byoneofit´smembers,whohastheresponsibilitytoassure
thattheevaluationexerciseisundertakenwithtransparency,impartialityandequity.Thechairofeach
panelwill be a researcher of renowned scientificmerit. The chairmaynever be a supervisor or co-
supervisor of applicants in the evaluation exercise, even if the applications have been submitted in
differentscientificareastothatofthepanel;thechairshouldnotevaluateanyapplication.
TheevaluationpanelswillbeformedaccordingtotheadaptedOECD’sRevisedFieldofScienceand
Technology Classification in the Frascati Manual (see Annex I). Depending on the number of
applications received in each panel, these may be subdivided by type of studentship/fellowship
(BD/BPD).
Applicationswillbeautomaticallyattributedtodifferentpanelsaccordingtothemainscientificarea,
secondaryscientificareaandsub-areas indicatedbytheapplicant, incompliancewithAnnexI.The
scientificareasandsub-areasidentifiedbytheapplicantcannotbechangedbytheevaluationpanel.
TheevaluationguideandconstitutionofthepanelaremadepublicontheFCTwebsite.Thechairswillbe
known when the call for applications opens; the remaining panel members will be known when
applicationscloseandbeforethepanelmeeting.
3.2.Chairingtheevaluationprocess
ThechairofeachevaluationpanelreceivesfromFCTasetofaccesscodesthatwillallowonlineaccessto
alltheapplicationssubmittedtohis/herevaluationpanel.
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPOST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–201610
IncollaborationwithFCTthechairisresponsiblefor:
• Assuringthattheevaluationexerciseistransparent,impartialandfair.
• Verifyingthattheapplicationsmatchthepanel.
• Allocating the applications for remote evaluation and indicating the first reader of each
application.
• Identifyingandsolvingpossibleconflictsofinterest.
• Ensuring that all panelmembers knowand apply the criteria and sub-criteria established, and
respectiveweighting.
• Ensurethatevaluatorscomplywithdeadlinesforwriting individualevaluationreportsandpre-
consensusreports(ifapplicable).
• Ensuringthatintheindividualandpre-consensusevaluationreports,evaluatorsjustifytheir
classifications substantially and clearly, allowing full understanding of the evaluation and
scoreassignedtoeachapplicant.
• Chairingthepanelmeetingsandensuringacollegialconsensusanddecisionprocess.
• Ensuringthatthefinalevaluationreportiscompletedbytheendofthepanelmeeting.
• Ensuringthatthecommentsunderpinningthedecisionsaremadefollowingwhatisestablished
in this guide, in accordance with the applicable legislation, that they are consistent and
coherent.
• Namingasubstitutechairpersonifneeded.
• Producingthepanelmeetingminuteswithallpanelmembers.
• Cooperatingwith FCT in solving problems and/or unforeseen events thatmay happen before,
duringand/orafterapanelmeeting.
• Coordinatingtheprocessoftheappeals.
3.3.Remoteandpanelmeetingevaluation
Initialprocedure:Remoteevaluationofeachapplication
• Eachapplicationisindividuallyevaluatedbyatleasttwomembersoftheevaluationpanel.
• If any of the evaluators has a conflict of interest with any of the applications, he/she should
declareitformallytothechairandtotheevaluationpanel.Inthiscase,theapplicationmaynot
be assigned to that evaluator. Any statement of conflict of interest should be included in the
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPOST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–201611
meetingreport.
• Wheneverdeemednecessary,thechairmay,duringtheremoteevaluationperiod,askFCT
fortheopinionofanexternalexpertor,ifnecessary,foranadditionalevaluatortojointhe
panel.
• An applicationmay be deemed non-assessable if it is considered to move substantially away
fromthepanel´sscientificareaofexpertise(afinalclassificationequivalenttozeroisawarded).
The evaluation panel shall, as a whole, validate this decision during the evaluation panel
meeting;thedecisionshouldbeclearlystatedandjustifiedinthepanelmeetingminutes.
• Theindividualevaluationiscarriedoutonline,inwriting;theevaluatorsshouldremotelyfillinan
individualevaluationform,foreachapplicationthatisassignedtohim/her.
• In the individual evaluation report, evaluators should separately classify the three evaluation
criteria(seebelow)andwritetherespectivecommentsjustifyingthegradegiven.
• Foreachapplication,oneoftheevaluatorswillbethefirstreader.
• Whentheindividualevaluationreportsarefinishedit isthefirstreader´stasktowritethepre-
consensus report (FPC), in a timescale defined by FCT and always before the panel meeting,
where all the reports are considered and validated. The pre-consensus report implies an
agreementbetweenevaluatorsregardingthecommentsandtheprovisionalfinalgrade.
• In the event that it is not possible for the two evaluators to come to an agreement, the pre-
consensus report should not be completed. It shall be the chair´s task to ensure the final
consensusonevaluationforthatapplication,basedontheindividualevaluationreportsandon
thepre-consensusreport,duringthepanelmeeting,resorting, ifnecessary,totheopinionofa
furtherevaluatororofanexternalreviewer.
Subsequentprocedure:MeetingoftheEvaluationPanel
Theobjectivesofthemeetingoftheevaluationpanelare:
• To analyse the merit of the applications submitted to the panel, based on the individual
evaluation reports and the pre-consensus report (if any) and on the provisional ranking
proposed,whichcomesoutoftheclassificationsinthetwoindividualevaluationreports.
• To provide a collective and collegial dialogue on the merit of each application. During the
meetingtheevaluators,thefirstreadersinparticularshouldbepreparedtobrieflypresentthe
strengths and weaknesses of each of the applications assigned to them. Any panel member,
irrespectivelyofhis/herareaofexpertise,mayquestionandcommenttheinformationsupplied
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPOST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–201612
ortheopinionofanyothermember.
Whendiscussingtherelativemeritoftheapplications,ifanevaluatororthechairhasaconflict
of interest, he/she shall have to leave the room and shall appoint someone from among the
remainingpanelmemberstoreplacehim/herwhileabsentfromthemeeting.
• Toproceedtothecompletionandvalidationofthefinalevaluationreport(FAF).Theelaboration
ofthefinalevaluationreportisthefirstreader´sresponsibility,andshouldtakeintoaccountthe
individualevaluationreportsandthepre-consensusreport,aswellasthediscussionandcollegial
panelopinion.
• To produce the final ranked list of all applications. All panelmembers are responsible for the
discussionoftherelativemeritofeachapplication,andfortheproductionofasinglerankedlist
ofapplicants,perpanelandpertypeofstudentship/fellowship.
3.4.CommentstobeconveyedtoApplicants
• Evaluators should pay attention to the requirement of giving clear, coherent and solid
justification for the scores awarded. It is the responsibility of the chair to ensure that in the
completion of the final evaluation report the evaluators justify their score with substantive
arguments that allow understanding of the evaluation carried out, identifying the strong and
weak points, under each criterion. Thus comments of a generic nature will not be accepted,
namely“theworkplanisveryweak”,“adequateCV”,etc.
• Besidesthecommentsqualifyingthescoreawardedforeachofthethreeevaluationcriteria,the
final evaluation report to the applicants shall give an explanation for any bonuses (e.g.,
disabilitybonus)orpenaltiesawarded,aswellasfornon-awardingofthebonuses.
Furthermore, the evaluation panel shall follow the general recommendations below about the
commentsjustifyingthescores:
• Avoidcommentswhichdescribeorareasummaryofitemscontainedintheapplication;
• Donotusethefirstperson.
• Useananalytical and impartial language,avoidingderogatory commentson theapplicant, the
workplan,thesupervisor,etc.
• Avoidaskingquestions,giventhattheapplicantisunabletorespond.
3.5.FinalMinutesoftheMeetingoftheEvaluationPanel
Theminutesofthemeetingofthepanelaretheresponsibilityofallpanelmembersandshouldbe
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPOST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–201613
signedbyall;itswritingupthecoordinator´sresponsibility.
Thereportshouldinclude:
• ThenameofallthoseparticipatingintheEvaluationPanelmeeting;
• Alistofanyconflictsofinterest;
• Theidentificationoftheapplicationsconsideredtobenon-assessable.
• Therankingoftheapplicants.
• Anyproxyvotingthatmayhaveoccurred,fordulyjustifiedreasonsofabsence.
3.6.ConflictofInterest(CDI)
If theevaluationpanel chairhasaconflictof interestwithanapplicationsubmitted to thepanel,
this should be declared to FCT at the beginning of the process of allocating the applications to
evaluators.
If an evaluator has a conflict of interest with any of the applications, he/she should declare it
formallytothechairofhis/herpanelwiththemaximumadvance.Inthiscasethepanelchairshould
notallocatethegivenapplication(s)tothisevaluator.
Declarationsofconflictsof interestarerequiredtobeincludedinthepanelmeetingminutes.The
chair of the evaluation panel, in collaboration with FCT, has the responsibility to compile a list
mentioning the reference of the application, as well as the name of the applicant and of the
evaluatorinconflictofinterest.
Conflictsofinterestofachairorevaluatorsincludebutarenotlimitedto:
• Belongingtothehostinstitutionspecifiedintheapplication(DepartmentorResearchUnit);
• Having published articles with the applicant or with supervisor(s), co-supervisor(s) of the
applicantuptothreeyearsbeforetheapplicationdeadline;
• Having ongoing, or planned, scientific cooperation with the applicant, supervisor(s) or co-
supervisor(s);
• Havingafamilyrelationshipwiththeapplicant,supervisor(s)orco-supervisor(s);
• Havinganyscientificorpersonalconflictwiththeapplicant,supervisor(s)orco-supervisor(s);
• Any other situation whichmay raise reservations, either on the part of the applicant or of an
externalbody,regardingtheircapacitytoimpartiallyassesstheapplication.
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPOST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–201614
3.7.Confidentiality
Confidentialityofallapplicationsshouldbeassuredandprotected,atalltimes.Allreviewersshall
sign a confidentiality agreement regarding the content of the applications, as well as events
occurring during the evaluation process, so that they are not allowed to copy, quote or use any
formofmaterialcontainedwithintheapplications.
4.EVALUATIONCRITERIA
All applications should be scored from 1,000 (minimum) to 5,000 (maximum) on the three
evaluationcriteria:
i) Meritoftheapplicant.
ii) MeritoftheWorkplan
iii) MeritoftheHostinstitution
Forsubsequentdecisionmakingaboutthegrantingofastudentship/fellowship,applicantswillbe
rankedaccordingtotheweightedaverageofthescoresofthethreecriteria.Thethreeevaluation
criteria, i) to iii)willhaverelativeweightsof, respectively,40%,30%,30%forBD,and40%,40%,
20%forBPD.
Incaseofa tie, thescoreawardedto themeritof theapplicantwillbeconsidered,and if the tie
persists,thescoreawardedtotheworkplan.Thescoreawardedtothemeritofthehostinstitution
willbethethirdcriterionusedincaseofatie.
Thescoresofanyoftheevaluationcriteriaincludethreedecimalplaces.Thevaluesresultingfrom
the application of the algorithm will be rounded to the third decimal place, according to the
followingcriteria:whenthefourthdecimalplaceisequaltoorabovefiveitwillberoundedup;if
belowfive,thevalueofthethirddecimalplacewillbekept.
4.1.MeritoftheApplicant
4.1.1.EvaluationoftheMeritoftheApplicantsinBDApplications
ThemeritoftheapplicanttoaPhDstudentshipisevaluatedbytwosub-criteria:
i)Academicpath(fromabaselinescore),witha60%weightontheapplicant’smerit.
ii)Personalcurriculum(whichreflectstheapplicant’sscientificandprofessionalpath),witha40%
weightontheapplicantsmerit.
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPOST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–201615
a) AcademicPathsubcriterioninBDapplications
Theapplicant’sclassificationforthesub-criterion“AcademicPath”resultsfromthefinalclassificationof
thefirstandsecondcyclesofstudies(oronlyfromthefirstcycle,whenapplicable), inaccordancewith
thereferencetableforthedefinitionofthebaselinescore(Table1).
Table1:Referencetableforthedefinitionofthebaselinescore
FinalAverageFirst(Bachelors)+
MastersorIntegratedMasters
FinalClassificationPreorPost-BolognaFirst
Degree(Bachelors)
BaselineScore
≥17 - 5,00016 - 4,000- ≥17 3,50015 - 3,500- 16 3,00014 - 2,500- 15 2,500
<14 - 1,500- 14 1,500- <14 1,000
ThefollowingappliesforTable1:
• The finalaverageof “Bachelors+Masters” (first column inTable1) inapostorpre-Bologna
path, results from the arithmetic average of the final score attained in the first study
cycle/Bachelorsandthe final scoreattained in thesecondstudycycle/Masters,byapplying
thefollowingalgorithm:
Final Average (Bachelors +Masters) = !"#$% !"#$% !!" !"!#$ !"#!!"#$% !!"#$% !"#$% !!" !"!#$ (!"#$%&#)
!
The average score resulting from application of the algorithm will be rounded to units,
accordingtothefollowingcriteria:whenthefirstdecimalplaceisequaltoorabovefiveitwill
beroundedup;whenitisbelowfivetheunitvaluewillbekept.
• In theeventof IntegratedMasterswhose institutionsdonot issuecertificateswith the1st
and 2nd cycle final scores, the final grade registered on the degree certificate after
completionofthecycleofstudies(300to360ECTS)willbeconsidered.
• ThecaseswhichdonotfallwithinanyofthesituationsinTable1,namelyMastersobtained
afternon-academicpaths,e.g.,Masters thatarenotprecededeitherbyapost-Bologna1st
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPOST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–201616
cycleofstudiesorbyapre-BolognaBachelors,willbespecificallyanalysedandresolvedby
theevaluators.
• Thecertificatesthatdonotspecifythefinalgrade(eitherquantitativeorqualitative)willbe
equatedtotheminimumgrade(baselinescore=1),forthepurposeofscoringthe“meritof
theapplicant”inthesub-criteria“academicpath”.
Bonusesandspecificcasesforthesub-criterion“academicpath”(BD)
• In the case of certificates that specify only one qualitative classification (for example pre-
BolognaMasters),thiswillbeconvertedasdefinedinTable2,forthepurposeofcalculation
ofthefinalaverage(Bachelors+Masters)andthesubsequentcalculationofthebaselinescore
(thirdcolumninTable1).
Table2:Tableforqualitativetoquantitativegradeconversion
QualitativeGrade
QuantitativeConversion
VeryGoodwithDistinction/withDistinctionandHonours 18
VeryGood/ApprovedwithDistinction 16
Good/Approved/ApprovedbyUnanimity 14
• Applicantsthatshowdulyprovenincapacityequaltoorhigherthan90%willhaveabonus
equivalent to 10% of the baseline score. Applicants that show a duly proven incapacity
equaltoorhigherthan60%willhaveabonusequivalentto5%ofthebaselinescore.
• WhenapplicantsprovideproofofmorethanoneBachelorsorMastersdegree,itisuptothe
evaluationpaneltodecidewhichacademicdegreesarethemostadequatefortheworkplan
and should therefore be considered for the baseline score in the sub-criterion “academic
path”. The evaluation panel may also consider all the degrees shown by the applicant in
evaluatingthepersonalcurriculum.Ineithercase,thecriteriaappliedshouldbemadeclear
intheminutesandinthefinalevaluationreport.
Thescoreforthesub-criterion“academicpath”shallbeobtainedusingthefollowingalgorithm:
𝐴𝑐𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑝𝑎𝑡ℎ 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 × 1 +𝑏𝑜𝑛𝑢𝑠 %100
×0,6
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPOST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–201617
b) “Personalcurriculum”sub-criterioninBDapplications
Intheassessmentofthissub-criteriontheevaluatorsshouldanalysethecurriculumoftheapplicantinan
integratedway, starting from a global overview of the applicant’s scientific and professional path. It is
important to consider the motivation and reference letters (mandatory documents) and the several
dimensionsofthecurriculumthatmaydemonstraterelevantscientificandprofessionalcareerpaths. In
particular the document that the applicant submits as the most representative of his/her
scientific/professionalpathshouldbeassessedforitsquality.Thisdocumentmaybe:
• a scientific publication (paper in a national or international peer-review journal, book, a book
chapter,apaperoracommunicationatanationalorinternationalconference,areport,Bachelor
orMastersthesis,etc.);
or,
• proofofscientificorprofessionalachievement(aperformance,anartisticwork,etc.).
Thescoreshouldconveytheevaluator´sconclusionontheglobalcurriculumandshouldbejustifiedinas
muchdetailaspossible,andinaclearandconsistentway,identifyingthestrongandtheweakpoints.
Thescoreofthe“personalcurriculum”sub-criterionwillbecalculatedbythefollowingalgorithm:
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑚 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑚 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 × 0,4
c) TotalscoreforthemeritoftheapplicantsinBDapplications
Incompliancewith theaforementionedparagraphs, the total scorefor themeritof theapplicants toa
PhDstudentshipisobtainedbythefollowingalgorithm:
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑀𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒
= 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 × 1 +𝑏𝑜𝑛𝑢𝑠 %100
×0,6 + (𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑚 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 × 0,4)
4.1.2.EvaluationoftheMeritoftheApplicantsinBPDapplications
The merit of the applicant to a post-doctoral fellowship is evaluated on a single criterion: the
personalcurriculum(whichreflectstheapplicant’sscientificandprofessionalpath).
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPOST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–201618
PersonalcurriculumcriterioninBPDapplications
In the assessment of this criterion the evaluators should analyse the curriculum of the applicant in an
integratedway,startingfromaglobaloverviewoftheapplicant’sscientificandprofessionalcareerpath.It
is important to consider themotivation and reference letters (mandatory documents) and the several
dimensionsofthecurriculumthatmaydemonstraterelevantscientificandprofessionalcareerpaths. In
particular,thequalityoftheoneortwodocumentsthattheapplicantsubmitsasthemostrepresentative
ofhis/herscientific/professionalpathshouldbeassessedforitsquality.Thesedocumentsmaybe:
o A scientific publication, such as papers in national or international peer-review journals, books,
chapters of books, papers or communications at national or international conferences, scientific
reports,PhDthesis,amongothers;
or,
o Proofofscientificandprofessionalachievements,suchasaperformanceoranartisticwork.
The scorewill convey the evaluator´s conclusion on the global curriculumand should be justified in as
muchdetailaspossible,andinaclearandconsistentway,identifyingthestrongandtheweakpoints.
Bonuses,penaltiesandspecificcasesinthepersonalcurriculumcriteria(BPD)
Abonus equivalent to 20%of the “personal curriculum” scorewill be awarded to applicants that
obtainedtheirPhDinaPortugueseuniversity,andthatconcomitantlyintendtodoapost-doc:
o Atadifferenthostinstitutiontotheonethatawardedtheirdegree
or,
o Inadifferent regionofPortugal to theonewhere thePhDhost institution is located,even if the
hostinstitutionbelongstothesameuniversityastheonethatawardedthedegree;
or,
o At the same institution where they obtained their PhD degree, after a two-year (at least)
professionalorscientificpathawayfromtheinstitution.
• Apenaltywillbeappliedtoapplicantsthathaveobtainedthedoctoratedegreemorethan72
monthspriortoapplication.Thepenaltywillbe,equivalentto20%ofthescoreawardedtothe
“personal curriculum” criterion. This procedure values applicants who have finished their PhD
more recently and looks to allow academic/professional paths to be more comparable, since
theseusuallyimprovewithelapsedtime.
Toassess timeelapsedafter thePhDdegree, thenumberofmonthsbetweenthePhDdegree
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPOST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–201619
awardandtheapplicationdeadlinewillbecounted.Thisperiodof timewillbereducedby12
months foreachdulyprovenmaternity/paternity leave takenafter thePhDdegree.After this
assessment,applicantshavingobtainedaPhDdegreemore72monthspriortoapplicationwill
bepenalised.
• Applicants that show duly proven incapacity equal to or higher than 90% will have a bonus
equivalentto10%ofthescoreawardedtothe“personalcurriculum”criterion.Applicantsthat
showdulyprovenincapacityequaltoorhigherthan60%andlowerthan90%willhaveabonus
of5%.
• Wheneverapplicants showproofofmore thanonPhD, itwillbeup to theevaluationpanel to
decide which of the academic degrees is the most adequate for the work plan and should
thereforebeconsidered.Theevaluationpanelmayalsoconsiderallthedegreesindicatedbythe
applicant for the evaluation of the personal curriculum; for the purposes of bonuses and/or
penalties the longest-held degreewill be considered.Whichever the case, the criteria that are
appliedshouldbeclearlydescribedintheminutesandinthefinalevaluationreport.
Thefinal totalscore for themeritof theapplicanttoapost-doctoral fellowship iscalculatedby
thefollowingalgorithm:
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑀𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒(𝑎) = 𝐶𝑃× 1 +𝐵1100
+𝐵2100
−𝑃1100
where:
CP = Personal curriculum score
B1 = 20(%), in the event of entitlement to a bonus for change of institution/region for the post-doc relative
to the PhD degree
B2 = 10(%) or 5(%), in the event of entitlement to a bonus due to proven disability
P1 = 20(%), in the event of application of a penalty due to more than 72 months elapsing since award of
PhD degree
4.2.MeritoftheWorkPlan(BDandBPDapplications)
ForapplicantstoaBDthiscriterionhasa30%weight.ForapplicantstoaBPD,whoshouldhavea
moreconsolidatedworkplan,thiscriterioncarriesa40%weight.
The evaluator shall assess the merit of the work plan based on the following three main quality
criteriaofaresearchplan:
• Substantiatedrelevanceoftheobjectofstudy;
• Scientificapproach(stateoftheart,methodology);
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPOST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–201620
• Viabilityoftheworkplan.
Asregardstherelevanceoftheobjectofstudythefollowingshouldbeconsidered:acleardefinition
ofthegoalsandresearchquestions;thepotentialcontributionoftheprojecttotheexistingbodyof
knowledge and to the advancement of science and technology; if relevant, its possible
socioeconomicimpact.
Regarding the scientific approach the merit of the state of the art that is described, and of the
proposed methodology should be considered, underlined by their clearness, consistency and
coherence,inaccordancewithinternationallyacceptedstandards.
As regards the viability of the work plan, the suitability of human resources and the proposed
methodologiestothetasksandpredictedgoalsintheworkplanandrespectivedeadlinesshouldbe
assessed.Ifapplicable,aanalysesofinherentriskstothedifferentstagesthatmakeuptheworkplan
shouldbeanalysed,potentiallywithpreliminaryidentificationofcriticalpointsandthecontingency
measurestobeadopted.
The score translates the evaluator´s conclusion about the threedimensions, in an integratedway,
andshouldbejustifiedinasmuchdetailaspossible,inaclearandconsistentway.
4.3.MeritofHostconditions(BDandBPDapplications)
Forapplicants toaBDthiscriterionwillhavea30%weight.ForBPDthiscriterionwillhavea20%
weight.
Theevaluatorswillassess themeritof theconditionsofferedby thehost institutionbasedontwo
main dimensions that underpin the quality of supervision and the framework of institutional and
researchteamsupportforaPhDstudentorpost-doctoralfellow:
• Thescientificmerit,andtheestablishedcompetenciesandexperienceofthesupervisor(andco-
supervisorsifany)intherelevantscientificarea;
• The quality of the working conditions and of supervision of the applicant, as assessed by the
adequacyoftheresearchteamandofthemeansmadeavailablebytheresearchunitforthefull
accomplishment of the proposed work plan. This evaluation is based on the applicant’s
descriptionof the suitability of themeans available at the institutionwhere theworkplanwill
takeplace.
Thescorereflectstheevaluator´sconclusionaboutthetwodimensionsconsidered,inanintegrated
way;itshouldbejustifiedinasmuchdetailaspossible,andinaclearandconsistentway.
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPOST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–201621
AnnexI–ScientificAreas,adaptedfromtheFOSClassificationintheFrascatiManual
MainScientific
AreaSecondaryScientific
Area Sub-area EvaluationPanel(BDandBDP)
1aExactSciences 1.1Mathematics PureMathematics
MathematicsAppliedMathematicsStatisticsandProbabilityOther,pleasespecify:
1.2ComputerandInformationSciences
ComputerSciences
ComputerandInformationSciences
InformationSciencesBioinformaticsOther,pleasespecify:
1.3PhysicalSciences
AtomicPhysics
Physics
MolecularPhysicsChemicalPhysics
CondensedMatterPhysicsParticlePhysicsNuclearPhysicsFluidsandPlasmaPhysicsOpticsAcousticsAstronomy
Other(pleasespecify):
1.4ChemicalSciences
OrganicChemistry
Chemistry
InorganicChemistryNuclearChemistryPhysicalChemistryPolymerScienceElectrochemistryColloidChemistryAnalyticalChemistryOther(pleasespecify
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPÓST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–2016
5
MainScientificArea
SecondaryScientificArea Sub-aarea EvaluationPanel(BDandBDP)
1bNatural
Sciences
1.5EarthSciencesandEnvironmentalSciences
GeosciencesandMultidisciplinaryStudies
EarthSciences
MineralogyPalaeontologyGeochemistryGeophysicsPhysicalGeographyGeologyVolcanologyMeteorologyAtmosphericSciencesClimaticResearchOceanographyHydrologyWaterResourcesOther(pleasespecify)EnvironmentalSciences Environmental Sciences andOther
NaturalSciences
1.6.BiologicalSciencesCellbiology
ExperimentalBiologyandBiochemistry
MicrobiologyVirologyBiochemistryMolecularBiologyBiochemicalResearchMethodsMycologyBiophysicsGeneticsandHeredityReproductiveBiologyDevelopmentalBiologyBotany
BiologicalSciences
ZoologyMammalogyHerpetologyIchthyologyOrnithologyEntomologyBehaviouralSciencesBiologyMarineBiologyAquacultureFreshwaterBiologyLimnologyEcologyBiodiversityConservationEvolutionaryBiologyOther(pleasespecify)
1.7OtherNaturalSciences
Other(pleasespecify) EnvironmentalSciencesandOtherNaturalSciences
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPÓST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–2016
6
MainScientific
AreaSecondaryScientific
Area Sub-areaEvaluationPanel(BDandBDP)
2Engineering
Sciencesand
Technology
2.1CivilEngineeringCivilEngineering
CivilEngineering
ArchitectureEngineeringConstructionEngineeringMunicipalEngineeringStructuralEngineeringTransportEngineeringOther(pleasespecify):
2.2ElectricalEngineering,ElectronicEngineeringandInformationEngineering
Electrical and ElectronicEngineering
ElectricalEngineering,ElectronicEngineeringandInformationEngineering
RoboticsAutomationandcontrolsystemsCommunicationEngineeringandSystemsTelecommunicationsComputerHardwareandArchitectureOther(pleasespecify):
2.3MechanicalEngineering
Mechanical Engineering andEngineeringSystems
MechanicalEngineering
AppliedMechanicsThermodynamicsAerospaceEngineeringNuclearRelatedEngineeringManufacturingProcessesAudioEngineeringandReliabilityAnalysisOther(pleasespecify):
2.4ChemicalEngineering
ChemicalEngineeringChemicalEngineeringChemicalProcessEngineering
Other(pleasespecify):
2.5MaterialEngineering
MaterialsEngineering
MaterialsEngineering
CeramicsCoatingsandFilmsCompositesPaperandWoodTextilesOther(pleasespecify):
2.6MedicalEngineering
MedicalandBiomedicalEngineering BioengineeringandBiotechnology
LaboratoryTechnologyOther(pleasespecify):
2.7EnvironmentalEngineering
EnvironmentalEngineering
EnvironmentalEngineeringandEnvironmentalBiotechnology
GeologicalEngineeringGeotechnicsPetroleumEngineering,EnergyandFuelsRemoteSensingMiningandMineralProcessingMarineEngineeringSeaVesselsOceanEngineeringOther(pleasespecify):
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPÓST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–2016
7
MainScientificArea
SecondaryScientificArea Sub-area
EvaluationPanel(BDandBDP)
2EngineeringSciencesandTechnology
2.8EnvironmentalBiotechnology
EnvironmentalBiotechnology
EnvironmentalEngineeringandEnvironmentalBiotechnology
BioremediationDiagnosticBiotechnologiesinEnvironmentalManagementEnvironmentalBiotechnologyRelatedEthicsOther(pleasespecify)
2.9IndustrialBiotechnology
IndustrialBiotechnology
BioengineeringandBiotechnology
BioprocessingTechnologiesBiocatalysisFermentationBioproducts
BiomaterialsBioplasticsBiofuelsBio-derivedNewMaterialsBio-derivedChemicalsOther(pleasespecify)
2.1Nanotechnology NanomaterialsNanotechnologiesNanoprocesses
Other(pleasespecify)
2.11OtherEngineeringSciencesandTechnologies
FoodEngineeringandTechnologies
AgriculturalandFoodTechnologiesandOtherEngineeringSciencesandTechnologiesOther(pleasespecify)
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPÓST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–2016
8
MainScientificArea
SecondaryScientificArea Sub-area EvaluationPanel(BDandBDP)
3MedicalandHealthsciences
3.1BasicMedicine Biomedicine
BiomedicineandBasicMedicine
AnatomyandHistologyHumanGeneticsImmunologyNeurosciencesPharmacologyMedicinalChemistryToxicologyPhysiologyPathologyOther(pleasespecify):
3.2ClinicalMedicine Andrology
ClinicalMedicineandHealthSciences
ObstetricsandGynaecologyPaediatricsCardiacandCardiovascularSystemsHaematologyRespiratorySystemCriticalCareMedicineandEmergencyMedicineAnaesthesiologyOrthopaedicsSurgeryRadiology, Nuclear MedicineandMedicalImagingTransplantationStomatologyOralSurgeryandMedicineDermatologyInfectiousDiseasesAllergologyRheumatologyEndocrinologyandMetabolismGastroenterologyandHepatologyUrologyandNephrologyOncologyOphthalmologyOtorhinolaryngologyPsychiatryClinicalNeurologyGeriatricsandGerontologyGeneralandFamilyMedicineInternalMedicineOtherClinicalMedicineAreasIntegrativeandComplementaryMedicineOther(pleasespecify):
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPÓST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–2016
9
MainScientific
AreaSecondaryScientific
Area SubareaEvaluationPanel(BDand
BDP)
3MedicalandHealthsciences
3.3HealthSciences HealthCareandServices
ClinicalMedicineandHealthSciences
HealthPolicyandServicesNursingNutritionandDieteticsPublicandEnvironmentalHealthTropicalMedicineParasitologyInfectiousDiseasesEpidemiologyOccupationalMedicine
OccupationalHealthSportsSciencesSocialBiomedicalSciencesBioethicsandHistoryandPhilosophyofMedicineOtherOther(pleasespecify)
3.4MedicalBiotechnology
Health-relatedBiotechnology
BioengineeringandBiotechnology
TechnologiesinvolvingthemanipulationofCells,Tissues,OrgansorthewholeOrganismGene-basedDiagnosticsandTherapeuticInterventionsBiomaterialsMedicalBiotechnologyRelatedEthicsOther(pleasespecify)
3.5OtherNaturalSciences
ForensicScience ClinicalMedicineandHealthSciencesOther(pleasespecify)
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPÓST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–2016
10
MainScientific
AreaSecondaryScientific
Area Sub-areaEvaluationPanel(BDand
BDP)
4AgriculturalSciences
4.1Agriculture,ForestryandFisheries
Agriculture
Agriculture,ForestryandFisheriesandotherAgriculturalSciences
ForestryFisheriesSoilScienceHorticultureViticultureAgronomyPlantsBreedingandPlantProtectionOther(pleasespecify):
4.2 Animal and DairyScience
AnimalandDairyScience
AnimalandVeterinarySciences
CattleFarming/HusbandryPetsOther(pleasespecify)
4.3VeterinaryScience
VeterinaryScience
Other(pleasespecify):
4.4AgriculturalBiotechnologyandFoodBiotechnology
AgriculturalBiotechnologyandFoodBiotechnology
AgriculturalandFoodTechnologiesandOtherEngineeringSciencesandTechnologies
GeneticManipulationTechonologyLivestockCloningMarkerassistedselectionDiagnosticsBiomassfeedstockManufacturingTechnologiesTransgenicBiopharmingEthicsRelatedtoAgriculturalBiotechnologyOther(pleasespecify)
4.5OtherAgriculturalSciences
Other(pleasespecify) Agriculture,ForestryandFisheriesandotherAgriculturalSciences
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPÓST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–2016
11
MainScientificArea SecondaryScientificArea
Sub-area EvaluationPanel(BDandBPD)
5SocialSciences 5.1Psychology Psychology PsychologyOther(pleasespecify)
5.2EconomicsandManagement
EconomicsEconomicsandManagementManagement
Other(pleasespecify)
5.3EducationalSciences GeneralEducation EducationalSciencesOther(pleasespecify)
5.4Sociology Sociology SociologySocialWorkAnthropology AnthropologyOther(pleasespecify) Sociology
5.5LawLaw
LawOther(pleasespecify)
5.6PoliticalSciencePoliticalScience
PoliticalSciencesMilitarySciences
Other(pleasespecify)
5.7SocialandEconomicGeography
SocialandEconomicGeography SocialandEconomicGeography
Other(pleasespecify)
5.8MediaandCommunications
DocumentalandInformationSciences MediaandCommunicationSciencesJournalismandMediaStudiesOther(pleasespecify)
5.9OtherSocialSciences ScienceCommunicationandManagement
ScienceCommunicationandManagementandOtherSocialSciencesOther(pleasespecify)
EVALUATIONGUIDE–CALLFORPhDSTUDENTSHIPSANDPÓST-DOCTORALFELLOWSHIPS–2016
12
MainScientificArea SecondaryScientificArea
Sub-area EvaluationPanel(BDandBPD)
6.1HistoryandArchaeologyHistory
HistoryandArchaeology6.Humanities
ArchaeologyandConservation Other(pleasespecify) 6.2Languagesand
Literature
Literature
LiteraryStudies
PortugueseStudies RomanceStudies EnglishStudies ClassicalStudies AfricanandAsianStudies GermanStudies Other(pleasespecify) Linguistics Linguistics 6.3Philosophy,Ethicsand
Religion
PhilosophyPhilosophy,EthicsandReligion TheologyandReligiousStudies
Other(pleasespecify) 6.4Arts Finearts
Arts
Musicology
PerformingArtsStudies(Film,Television,Theatre,Dance,etc.)
Other(pleasespecify) HistoryofArt MuseologyandHistoryofArt ArchitectureandDesign Design,ArchitectureandTown
Planning 6.5OtherhumanitiesHistoryofScienceandTechnology HistoryofScienceandTechnologyand
OtherHumanities Other(pleasespecify)