Review process

Beoordelingsprocedure

The review process for the open calls and theme calls consists of a pre-proposal and full-proposal review phase. The entire process takes approximately six to eight months and includes the following stages:

Pre-Proposal

  • Eligibility Check

    KWF verifies whether the pre-proposal complies with the requirements and scope of the call. If eligible, the proposal proceeds to the next phase.

  • KWF classification and input

    During classification, the research phase, modalities, disease site codes, and other characteristics are determined based on the project's objectives and methodology. In the pre-proposal stage, KWF input (see full proposal stage for a detailed description) is provided only for theme calls, not open calls. 

  • Board Review

    Dedicated Review Committees, represented by professionals with relevant expertise, assess the proposal's eligibility in accordance with KWF’s mission goals. Three committee members are assigned per proposal.

    Additionally, the committee evaluates the project's relevance, scientific quality, and feasibility, to determine whether the project is viable based on its relevance, scientific rigor, and feasibility. If it meets the criteria, applicants are invited to submit a full proposal. Otherwise, a rejection letter is issued.

Full proposal

  • Eligibility Check

    KWF verifies whether the full proposal complies with the requirements and scope of the call.

  • External Review

    Full proposals undergo evaluation by external (inter)national experts. KWF aims for each project proposal to be reviewed by at least three external (inter)national expert reviewers, who will assess the proposal based on three criteria: 

    • Relevance: contribution to KWF’s mission goals or advancement of knowledge about the causes and development of (the effects of) cancer.   
    • (Scientific) quality: adherence to all (scientific) requirements necessary to achieve the stated objective.
    • Feasibility: availability of necessary resources, preconditions, viable methodology and realistic objectives.

  • Patients’ Advisory Committee

    The Patients’ Advisory Committee (PACO) provides an analysis of the project proposal, based on the Dutch lay summary, evaluating relevance, feasibility, and patient involvement from the patient’s perspective. This applies to all projects from the 'Creation of Modality' research phase onwards.

  • Other experts/specialists

    If needed, specialists such as entrepreneurs, statisticians, business developers, implementation experts, caregivers, pharmacists or other relevant parties assess feasibility from their specific area of expertise.

  • KWF input

    KWF provides additional input to the Review Committee by evaluating:

    • Prior funding for similar projects by KWF or other funders; 
    • Prior rejections, including justifications; 
    • Logical follow-up to previously funded KWF projects;
    • Track record of the project leader (and if relevant, participating parties);
    • Alignment with KWF funding priorities; 
    • Opportunities for collaboration.

  • Board Review

    The three assigned Review Committee members independently assess the project proposal’s (scientific) quality, relevance and feasibility considering external reviews, PACO feedback, and KWF input.

  • Interview

    An interview may be conducted to assess certain aspects, such as project leadership (for Young Investigator Grants), or collaboration levels (for consortia). If applicable, PACO representatives may participate.

  • Board Review Meeting

    During the Board review meeting, the full committee discusses each proposal, integrating the individual assessments of the three committee members, and considering KWF input when necessary. If applicable, PACO representatives may participate. 

    The full Review Committee then deliberates on the project proposal and collectively determines the final score and justification.

  • Scoring

    Proposals are scored on a 1-5 scale, with one decimal:

  1. Insufficient: does not meet minimum funding requirements.
  2. Poor: below funding threshold; requires significant improvement.
  3. Sufficient: meets minimum funding threshold; fundable in principle.
  4. Good: above average; clearly exceeds funding threshold.
  5. Excellent: exceptional; significantly exceeds funding threshold.

  • Prioritization Meeting

    During this meeting, the (vice) chairs of the Review Committee, KWF representatives, and, if applicable, PACO representatives will discuss the final funding recommendations, guided by the Review Committee’s comparative assessment of all project proposals and KWF’s policy considerations.

  • Final Decision

    KWF makes the final decision which projects receive funding.

Code of conduct

KWF employs a Code of Conduct [PDF in Dutch] to ensure that the evaluation process is fair, objective, and confidential. The Code stipulates that members of the review committee and external reviewers disclose any relationships and interests regarding the applicant and his or her project proposal. If there is a conflict of interest (whether work-related, personal, or financial), serving as a reviewer is not permitted.