How to Apply?

The electronic application of the candidates must contain the following documents and information in English

• electronic application form in the UEF recruitment system
• certified copy of the PhD degree diploma (or other certified proof if diploma not received yet)
• curriculum vitae (CV) (maximum 6 pages, including a list of 10 most important publications)
• information on the length of research experience
• summary of the research proposal (one page)
• research proposal (maximum 8 pages with sections of Excellence, Impact and Implementation, incl. Ethical Declaration and Ethical Self-assessment)
• preliminary Data Management Plan (one page)
• at least one support letter from a supervisor indicating technical fit of the proposal with the hosting research group

Proof of English language proficiency may be asked if it is not indicated in the academic degrees or diplomas.

Application requirements include that the candidates need to

• write a research proposal independently before submitting the application by the given deadline. Research proposal needs to contribute to at least one research area of the NOVEL programme, and interdisciplinary and intersectoral proposals are strongly encouraged.
• contact at least one preferred supervisor prior to submitting the application to discuss the technical fit of the candidate’s research idea with the competence and infrastructure of the hosting research group (incl. major equipment, lab resources, availability or possibility to access required data, and supervisory expertise).
• if an appropriate technical fit exists, ask for at least one support letter to be attached to the application.
• use the templates provided (if documents are not in English and/or if given templates and forms are not used, the application will not be processed further)
• submit only one application per call (if one submits many, the application submitted first will be acknowledged)
• commit to follow HE2022 ethical principles and guidelines by filling in and attaching into their application the Ethics Declaration and Ethics Self-assessment forms.

1 Eligibility check

The first step of the selection workflow is the eligibility check pursued by the Programme Manager to determine whether the candidates fulfil the predefined eligibility criteria. This is followed by the ethics check pursued by the Ethics Committee to evaluate relevant ethical aspects and infrastructure needs for the applicants’ research proposals. If needed, consultation can be asked from the UEF Ethics Board. Applications not meeting the pre-set criteria, lacking required documents, or having severe ethical problems will not proceed to the next stage. All eligible applicants passing the ethics check will proceed to the next stage of the selection procedure.

2 External Peer review

The second step is the external peer review conducted by international external science experts with no conflict of interest with the applicants or applications. Research proposals and CVs of the applicants will be evaluated independently by three science experts, who provide both numerical scoring and verbal feedback. The PM will calculate the total scores as an average of the individual reviewer’s scores. All candidates reaching a pre-given threshold score will proceed to the next stage of the Selection Committee review. See evaluation criteria in section 5.2.

3 Selection Committee Review

The third step is the Selection Committee (SelectC) review. Each applicant’s research proposal and CV will be evaluated by one of the four dedicated SelectCs, each representing one of the NOVEL research areas.

The Selection Committees are composed of a chair, an industry expert, and an HR expert from UEF. All members except the HR expert are external to UEF. All evaluators provide numerical scoring and verbal feedback to the applicants. The industrial expert will evaluate only section 2 (Impact)

Selection Committees also monitor that the applicants were evaluated fairly in the previous evaluation stage. In case of considerable difference (10 points or more of the maximum of 30 points available) between the scores given by the three peer reviewers in the previous stage, SelectCs discuss and may change the outlier scores within the limit of 5 points out of the maximum of 30 points that one applicant may reach.

The PM will calculate the total scores for each candidate as an average of the individual reviewer’s scores. The candidates reaching a pre-given threshold score will proceed to the final ranking list (see next section)

The fourth step is the final ranking lists and making the final decision by the programme’s Steering Committee (SteerC).

4 Final decision

The final decision is based on the weighted final scores of the applicant (External peer review 60 % and the Selection Committee review 40 % of the total scores) calculated by the Project Manager, as an average of the two stages of evaluation (the maximum weighted average score is 30 points). 

If two or more candidates receive the same score, the SteerC considers the gender balance of the programme/research areas, in addition to scientific balance and the resources of the hosting research groups. In case of similar scores, the Finnish law allows the SteerC to offer the position first to a candidate representing the minority gender within the programme/research area.

The Project Manager will inform the selected PFs of the final decision and provides instructions on the appointment process and signing of employment contracts.

The remaining candidates will be placed on a waiting list until the selected applicants have confirmed acceptance of the position within 10 days. In case of vacancies, the next person on the waiting list will be offered an employment contract. When all positions have been filled, the Project Manager will inform the applicants on the waiting list about the completion of the selection process.

For transparency purposes, the names and project titles of selected Fellows are published on the NOVEL website, following confirmation that successful candidates have accepted the positions offered to them.

If less than 9 positions are filled in the first call, the unfilled positions will be opened again in the second call. If any of the 14 positions remain unfilled in the two calls, a third call will be opened.

5 Appeals & Redress

Applicants will receive feedback in the different stages of the evaluation process together with information on the appeal procedure via a dedicated electronic form. Applicants have five (5 days) to send complaints in each stage, which will be resolved during the following 5 days.

Feedback and appeals will be addressed by the Appeal Committee.

Appeal may result in one of the following outcomes:

• rejection of the request with justification and formal notification sent to the applicant or
• the request is declared admissible and justified, with corrective action being taken to allow the applicant to proceed in the evaluation process.

 

 

 

 

 

Selection of postdoctoral researchers will be based on their merits, ensuring equal opportunity regardless of nationality, language, age, ethnicity, religion, disability, career breaks, social and economic status, gender and sexual orientation, politics, or any other personal feature.

Evaluation Criteria:

Four specific criteria are used: a) the applicant, b) the research project, 3) its impact and d) its implementation, using a scale from 1 to 6.

Subject of and focus of assessment in each category

APPLICANT
Quality of applicant at international level (considering career stage and plans). Record of scient. publications, teaching, supervision, innovation, dissemination. International networks, collaboration, awards, grants, technical competency.

RESEARCH PROJECT
Quality and credibility of proposed project, incl. RQ, theory and methods. Originality, ambition level of novelty. Adherence to Open Science principles. Strategic fit with UEF and NOVEL. Potential to reach/re-enforce professional maturity/independence during the fellowship. Quality and appropriateness of the proposed collaborations, within UEF, regionally and internationally.

IMPACT of the research project
Potential of the plan to produce scientific breakthrough and advance applicant’s personal career aspirations. Quality of the proposed exploitation, dissemination, and communication strategies to academic and non-academic audiences, including publications. Quality of the planned networking activities.

IMPLEMENTATION of the research project
Overall clarity, coherence, level of detail and feasibility of the work plan, work packages and the workflow. Appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources, project management structure, and the risk management plan. Feasibility of completion within the 36-month fellowship.

OVERALL SCORE
Overall quality, coherence and comprehensiveness of the plans and competence. Acknowledgement of mobility and diversity as a potentially valuable contribution to the applicant’s professional development and the NOVEL PF community.

Scoring

6 = Outstanding (novelty and innovation at global level)
5 = Excellent (extremely good in international comparison)
4 = Very good (only minor elements to be improved)
3 = Good (some elements need improvement)
2 = Satisfactory (substantial improvement needed)
1 = Poor (includes severe intrinsic weaknesses)

 

Steering Committee

Members

Professor Jussi Pihlajamäki (Chair), Vice rector, UEF

Dr Jouni Kekäle, Chief Senior Specialist, UEF

Dr Anu Liikanen, UEF Research services director, UEF

Professor Jussi Kukkonen, Vice Dean, Faculty of Science and Forestry; UEF

Professor Tommi Laukkanen, Vice Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies, UEF

Dr Kaisa Unkila, Head of Services at Neurocenter Finland

Professor Tarja Malm, Programme Coordinator, A I Virtanen Institute, UEF

Professor Päivi Eriksson, Programme Co-coordinator, UEF Business School

________________________________________________________________________

Secretery:

MSc Paula Inkeroinen, Project manager, UEF Research Services

Dr Piritta Parkkari, Impact manager, UEF Business School

Selection Committee

The members will be nominated later on