The German Research Foundation (DFG) is the central organisation in which science in German administers itself. At the heart of the institution are the review boards, whose members will be newly elected until 18 November. 27 scientists from Oldenburg are also standing for election.
"There's hardly a committee I'd rather have worked for" - this is how ecologist Prof. Dr Helmut Hillebrand sums up his work on the DFG Review Board for Zoology. The Oldenburg university lecturer in planktology has been working for this committee for almost eight years. It is one of numerous DFG review boards that fulfil a responsible task: They evaluate research proposals on the basis of scientific reviews and recommend projects for financial support.
211 subjects from all academic disciplines, from ancient civilisations to neuroscience and water research, are assigned to 49 review boards. The members of the review boards work on an honorary basis and - what is special - are elected by the academics themselves. The review boards are thus the parliament of science.
From 21 October to 18 November, around 165,000 academics across Germany will be called upon to elect 632 members of the review boards for the coming four-year term of office. A total of 1,659 candidates have put themselves forward for the election, 27 of whom are from Oldenburg. Academics with a doctorate who are active in research are eligible to vote. They have six votes, of which a maximum of three may go to one candidate. The University's Elections Office provides information on how to register to vote and the election process on its website. The review board election takes place online.
Scientific principles
Because the review boards also advise the DFG on the further development of its funding programmes, the election is important for the German research landscape. Last year, the DFG, which receives most of its funding from the federal and state governments, approved 3.4 billion euros for research projects. DFG-funded projects are also playing an increasingly important role at the University of Oldenburg: the DFG approved around 23.7 million euros for research here in 2018. In comparison: in 2008 and 2009, it was 7.5 and 8.1 million euros respectively.
The review boards ensure that DFG funds are distributed in a procedure that follows scientific principles. Proposals submitted by researchers to the DFG go through a multi-stage decision-making process. Volunteer reviewers evaluate a research proposal from a scientific perspective, after which members of the relevant review board assess the expert opinions. "We work like hyper-reviewers," explains Prof Dr Gerd Hentschel, a Slavic scholar from Oldenburg who currently represents his subject on the review board for linguistics. As expert opinions also vary in quality, this work is particularly important.
Goal-oriented and transparent
This is because the review boards ensure that research projects are evaluated according to uniform standards. Scientific quality cannot be measured as easily as a long jump. But the current procedure is the most reliable basis for making a judgement, emphasises Hentschel. In general, the review boards work very purposefully and transparently, says Hillebrand. And: "There are very clear rules on bias. And we are aware of how unconscious bias can influence decisions." This is precisely why the ecologist values the work of the review board so much.
However, the voluntary commitment also costs time: on average, the committees meet four times a year for two days each for consultations. Each member presents 10 to 15 proposals at these meetings, which are then discussed. Thanks to this work, the scientists gain important insights: "We receive such a wide variety of proposals that we learn the most ourselves," says Hentschel. You also get an overview of which points are criticised in expert reports, such as poorly formulated hypotheses or a lack of preliminary work, adds Hillebrand.
It is precisely this experience that the review board members bring back to their home university: "We can help our colleagues and young researchers to write DFG proposals," says Hentschel. For the Slavicist, too, working at the DFG - his term of office is coming to an end - has been one of the most interesting activities at national and international review level. "It was enriching and fun," he says. The Slavicist has an important tip for those who can imagine working on the review boards: "You shouldn't put your involvement in the review boards at the end of your own career," he says. This is the only way to ensure that your own experience is beneficial for you and your colleagues.