Regular Research Grant Program

Regular Research Grant Program is sponsored by FAPESP (São Paulo Research Foundation). This opportunity supports mission-aligned projects and measurable outcomes.

Page updated on 01/27/2026 - Published on 10/17/2025 Guidelines for the Submission and Selection of Proposals for Regular Research Grant Current guidelines as from March 1st, 2025. 1. Purposes and characteristics 5.

Application requirements 5. 1 Principal Investigator 6. Required conditions and obligations 6.

1 Principal Investigator 8. 1 Costing expenses of the research project 8. 3 Complementary requests 9.

Proposal submission format 9. 2 Documents required to apply for the Regular Research Grant 10. Authorizations required by Law to perform the research 11.

Intellectual Property 12. Review of applications 12. 1.

1 Eligibility of the proposals and indication of reviewers by the Area Coordinators 12. 1. 2 Analysis and issue of review by the ad hoc reviewers 12.

1. 3 Analysis and recommendation by the Area Coordinators 12. 1.

4 Analysis and recommendation by the Associate Coordinators 12. 1. 5 Scientific Director's decision and analysis by the Executive Board and the Board of Trustees 12.

1. 7 Prioritization procedure based on budget availability 12. 1.

8 The most common shortcomings observed in applications for the Public Education Research Program 12.

3 Appeals for reconsideration 1) Purpose and characteristics ( back to index ) The Regular Research Grant is intended to support research projects, developed under the responsibility of a Principal Investigator (PI) who holds a PhD or equivalent title (evaluated based on their curricular summary) and is a formal employee of a public or private research Institution in the state of São Paulo that hosts the project.

FAPESP expects that the PI shoes relevant dedication to the research activities of this project. For this reason, Regular Research Grants with a start date before the expiration date of another Regular Research Grant with the same PI (Principal Investigator) shall only be awarded under exceptional and well-justified circumstances.

The Grant analysis is based on the importance of the project's intended contribution to its field of knowledge and the adequacy of the requested funds, among other components of the proposal. Proposals with a total budget exceeding R$ 600.

000, excluding Research Overhead (Fringe Benefits and Direct Research Infrastructure Cost) and the Institutional Research Overhead, may only be approved under exceptional and well-justified circumstances. 2) Duration ( back to index ) Up to 36 months, with the possibility of an extension of up to 6 (six) additional months under exceptional circumstances and with justification accepted by FAPESP.

3) Submission date ( back to index ) Applications may be submitted to FAPESP at any time throughout the year. 4) Definitions ( back to index ) a) Principal Investigator (PI): the researcher who assumes responsibility for the preparation and submission of the proposal and for the scientific and administrative coordination of the project, if approved by FAPESP.

b) Associate Researcher (AR): researchers of the team, designated by the Principal Investigator and approved by FAPESP, who assume responsibility for contributing to parts of the research project. c) Host Institution: the institution that hosts the research project and, in general, the institution where the Principal Investigator is based.

The Host Institution must assume commitments regarding the storage and access to materials and equipment, institutional support for the research project and the management of any intellectual property created. 5) Application requirements ( back to index ) 5.

1) Principal Investigator ( back to index ) a) Have no pending responsibilities with FAPESP (i.e., issuance of reviews and return process, delivery of Scientific Report and Financial Report). Proposals for which the PI has unfulfilled responsibilities with FAPESP that are overdue by more than 60 (sixty) days will not be reviewed.

b) Hold a PhD or equivalent title, as well as research competence and productivity in the field of the presented project, assessed by their curricular summary, as well as availability, measured by their work regime and current number of advisees. b.

1) Periods of leave of absence on the part of the applicant due to maternity/paternity leave, disability, temporary disabilities or intensive care for ill, elderly or disabled people will be considered by FAPESP in the analysis of the curricular summary, under the terms of PR Ordinance no. 171/2024 .

c) The Principal Investigator's academic background, expressed in their curricular summary, must demonstrate international experience in research after their doctorate or demonstrate active participation in international networks for research collaboration. d) Be a formal employee of the host institution in the state of São Paulo. d.

1) Accreditation in a postgraduate program at the institution does not configure employee status nor does it waive this requirement. d. 2) FAPESP may accept, under certain conditions, an affiliation that does not configure employee status.

However, this must be robust in terms of commitment to the academic activities of the Research Institution of the state of São Paulo. In such cases, prior to the submission of the proposal, an inquiry must be submitted to FAPESP's Scientific Directorate, through the channel "Converse com a FAPESP", informing: d. 2.

1) the nature of the institutional association; d. 2. 2) the number of hours per week dedicated to research which is implied in this association; d.

2. 3) the associated source of funding; d. 2.

4) the duration of such association. d. 3) Retired Teachers associated with an Institution in the state of São Paulo, whether public or private, must inform that they are retired teachers and present, at the time of the submission, a document demonstrating the nature of the institutional association.

e) The PI should inform whether they are applying for or receiving a similar grant from other sources for the same purpose as the research proposal submitted. 5. 2) Host Institution ( back to index ) a) Acknowledge the infrastructural needs demanded by the project, according to the information declared in the document: Anexo II - Information approved by the Host Institution on institutional infrastructure .

6) Required conditions and obligations ( back to index ) 6. 1) Principal Investigator ( back to index ) For the duration of the Grant, the Principal Investigator must meet the following conditions and obligations: a) Remain with no pending responsibilities with FAPESP (i.e., issuance of reviews and return all processes, delivery of Scientific Report and Financial Report). Noncompliance will lead to blocking the PI's funding.

b) Be aware of the obligations specified in the Grant Contract. b. 1) Noncompliance with the rules and the terms specified in the Grant Contract may imply the cancellation of the Grant and the obligation to return funds already released by FAPESP, in updated amounts.

c) When requested by FAPESP, provide grant/fellowship/scholarship reviews in their field of knowledge, free of charge and within the deadlines stipulated. d) Consult FAPESP before committing to activities that will require the Principal Investigator's absence from the Host Institution for more than 90 days, according to CTA Ordinance no. 74/2023, available at fapesp. br/16110 .

d. 1) In the event of an exceptional situation that requires the Principal Investigator to be away from the Host Institution for more than 90 days, FAPESP may consider requests on an exceptional and duly justified basis. e) Consult FAPESP before accepting any financial support from any other funding entity, whether public or private, for the execution of the research project related to the Grant awarded.

f) Do not modify the project (initial plan, dates, etc.) without the prior consent of FAPESP. g) Submit Scientific Reports and Financial Reports within the deadlines specified in the Grant Contract, accompanied by the required documentation. h) Make all arrangements to ensure the success of the approved research project.

i) Refer to FAPESP's support in theses, papers, books, conference abstracts and any other publication or form of dissemination of activities resulting, completely or partially, from a Grant from the Foundation, as foreseen in Clause 7 of the Grant Contract and described at fapesp. br/11789 .

j) In the event that the research project funded by FAPESP has also been awarded financial support from any other public or private source, the researcher is obligated to inform and refer to the support, with clear indication of its source, in all forms of dissemination mentioned in the previous item.

k) Take the necessary steps to ensure that, through the service offered by the Host Institution, the full texts of papers or other types of scientific communication resulting (in whole or in part) from the project funded by FAPESP and published in international journals are made available in an institutional repository of scientific works.

This should be in accordance with the open access policy of each journal, as soon as the manuscripts are approved for publication, or in the shortest time compatible with the restrictions of each journal, and in any case no later than 12 months from the date of publication. FAPESP Policy for Open Access to Publications Resulting from Grants and Scholarships is available at fapesp. br/12632 .

l) Verify, in a timely manner, whether the execution of the project produces or could potentially produce results, in whole or in part, which might be the object of protection by Patent of Invention, Utility Model, Industrial Design, Software or any other form of protection of Intellectual Property rights, subject to FAPESP's Intellectual Property Policy, available at fapesp. br/17939 .

m) Be aware of and respect the guidelines contained in FAPESP's Code of Good Scientific Practice, available at fapesp. br/boaspraticas . n) Ensure that the data generated during the project is properly managed.

o) Always use the updated versions of the rules, forms and procedures available at fapesp. br and fapesp. br/sage .

6. 2) Host Institution ( back to index ) For the duration of the Grant, the Host Institution must meet the following conditions and obligations: a) Ensure that the researcher and the group of researchers participating in the project receive all the institutional support necessary for its realization, as previously agreed with the Principal Investigator. a.

1) Particularly, the researcher and the research group participating in the project shall be provided with physical space for the proper installation and operation of equipment, permission to use all facilities (laboratories, computer networks, libraries, databases, etc.), and access to all services (laboratory, administrative, import technicians, etc.) available at the institution and relevant to the execution of the project.

b) Reimburse FAPESP for the entire investment made if the project is hindered or made unfeasible due to noncompliance with the previous item and without the prior consent of FAPESP. c) Be aware that failure to comply with the institutional support described in items "a" and "a. 1" above and in the Grant Contract may affect the progress of future proposals submitted to FAPESP by researchers of the Unit.

d) Provide a support service rendered by the Institution's libraries, aimed at managing, guiding researchers, indexing, and making available in the institutional repository the full texts of papers or other types of scientific communication resulting from research and projects partially or fully supported by FAPESP and published in international journals.

FAPESP Policy for Open Access to Publications Resulting from Grants and Scholarships/Fellowships is available at fapesp. br/12632 . 7) Restrictions ( back to index ) a) Have more than one Regular Research Grant in effect simultaneously, except in situations justified and approved by FAPESP.

Justifications must be included in the "Observações/Manifestações" (Remarks/Comments) field of the proposal for review. b) Expend Grant resources outside the term of the Grant Contract. c) Modify the approved research project (initial plan, dates, etc.) without prior consent of FAPESP.

d) Use FAPESP funds for any purpose other than those approved, except under the conditions available at fapesp. br/17938 . 8) Fundable Items ( back to index ) The research project budget submitted to FAPESP must be detailed and each item must be specifically justified in relation the project’s objectives.

Researchers must follow Guidelines for the Use of Funds and Financial Reports, available at fapesp. br/17938 . 8.

1) Costing expenses of the research project ( back to index ) Proposals with a total budget exceeding R$ 600,000, excluding Research Overheads (Fringe Benefits and Direct Research Infrastructure Cost) and Institutional Research Overhead, may be approved under exceptional circumstances that are well justified by the applicant. a) Permanent material acquired in the country and imported; a.

1) The Regular Research Grant is not intended to support the acquisition of large equipment. There may only be requested items with an individual rate of up to R$150,000 (including accessories and supplements, at the discretion of FAPESP). b) Consumables acquired in the country or imported; c) Third-Party Services contracted in the country and abroad; c.

1) When the application includes costs to pay for third-party corporate entity services at the project's Host Institution, the justification for these services must be detailed and itemized, including a breakdown of the cost of the requested service into consumable material, personnel, and others. The Host Institution must bear all personnel costs.

The cost of the service requested will be analyzed, including compatibility with other providers of similar services. d) Transportation Expenses and Daily Fees for activities directly linked to the proposed research, including for Visiting Researchers; d. 1) The rules described in PR Ordinance no. 35/2020 and the tables of values available at fapesp.

br/valores must be observed for the use of daily fees in Brazil or abroad. e) Fellowships/Scholarships as Associated Submissions, according to the rules described at fapesp. br/17940 , of the following types: e.

1) Scientific Initiation (undergraduate). e. 1.

1) The student must have already completed a sufficient number of subjects relevant for the development of the research project. e. 2.

1) The referred student must have been accepted into the postgraduate program in the project’s Host Institution. e. 3) Doctorate (without MSc) (DD).

e. 3. 1) The referred student must have been accepted into the postgraduate program in the project’s Host Institution.

e. 4. 1) The referred student must have been accepted into the postgraduate program in the project’s Host Institution.

e. 5. 1) In the case of Post-Doctoral Fellowships granted as a budget item of the project, the selection process must be international and must be documented for the implementation of each Fellowship.

e. 5. 2) If the documents proving the completion of a public and international selection process are not presented at the time of nomination of the Fellowship recipient, the Fellowship will not be awarded by FAPESP.

e. 6) Scientific Journalism (SJ). e.

7) Teaching Fellowship - Pedagogical Improvement. e. 8) Technical and Academic Training.

8. 2) Research Overhead ( back to index ) a) Research Overhead consists of two parts: a. 2) Direct Research Infrastructure Cost (DRIC); b) The Guidelines for the Use of Research Overhead Funds are available at fapesp.

br/17937 . c) In addition to the Grant’s Research Overhead, a Research Overhead - Institutional Research Infrastructure will be awarded, according to the rules described at fapesp. br/rti .

8. 3) Complementary requests ( back to index ) Complementary Requests are those associated with the objectives of the current Regular Research Grant, whose processing or treatment undergoes some modification as a result of this condition. Guidance on sending complementary requests are available at fapesp.

br/17929 . The concept applies to requests for the Visiting Researcher, Publications, Participation in Scientific Meetings and Equipment Repair Awards, as well as regular Scholarships/Fellowships in Brazil and Research Fellowship Abroad (RFA) requests. 8.

4) Non-fundable items ( back to index ) Salaries of any kind, non-technical and occasional third-party services, civil constructions resulting in increase in the constructed area and administrative services and materials are non-fundable. Other prohibitions concerning the use of funds granted by FAPESP are specified in the Guidelines for the Use of Funds and Financial Reports, available at fapesp. br/17938 .

9) Proposal submission format ( back to index ) Regular Research Grant requests must be submitted through the on-line system SAGe ("Sistema de Apoio à Gestão"), available at: fapesp. br/sage . Within SAGe (under the "Manuais" link), documents that explain how to register users, prepare and submit proposals for Grants, and request the registration of research institutions may be found.

9. 1) Staff description ( back to index ) In addition to the Principal Investigator, the staff may include: a) Associate Researchers; b) Scholarship/Fellowship Recipients; c) Students without a Scholarship/Fellowship, with well-defined tasks in the research project; d) Technical support staff; Staff members must be included when filling out the application in the SAGe's "Dados Gerais do Projeto" > "Pessoas Envolvidas" tab.

All staff members must have an up-to-date registration in the SAGe system, containing a copy of their ID card. 9.

2) Documents required to apply for the Regular Research Grant ( back to index ) The following documents are required for the submission of the Regular Research Grant proposal: a) Research project : The research project must clearly state the importance of the intended contribution to the field of knowledge in which the project is inserted.

It should be perfectly presented with regard to the objectives, scientific foundation, and appropriateness of the methods used. The project body should not exceed 25 pages, excluding annexes. b) Curricular summary of the Principal Investigator and each of the Associate Researchers.

c) Results of previous grants: if the Principal Investigator has participated as Principal Investigator, or Co-Principal Investigator, or as a beneficiary of other Grants or Scholarships/Fellowships awarded by FAPESP in the last 5 years, they must submit a document containing its results, project titles and process numbers.

If the Principal Investigator has not participated in FAPESP Grants or Scholarships/Fellowships in this period, they must submit a document containing the following sentence: "The Principal Investigator has not received support from FAPESP in the last 5 years under the conditions defined in the guidelines".

d) Individual activity plans for each Scientific Initiation, Masters, Doctorate (without MSc) (DD), Doctorate, Post-Doctoral, Scientific Journalism, Teaching Fellowship - Pedagogical Improvement, Technical Training and/or Academic Training Scholarship/Fellowship requested: d. 1) The names of the Scholarships/Fellowship Recipients are not necessary at the time of submission of the proposal.

If the Scholarship/Fellowships are approved, the Principal Investigator of the Grant must arrange a selection process for their Recipients. d. 2) For each Technical and/or Academic Training Fellowship requested, the Activity Plan must be prepared according to the template available for download on SAGe.

It must include the title and summary of the activity plan, intended objectives, work plan, justifications for choosing the Fellowship level and for the proposed activity plan.

e) Budgets from authorized representatives/vendors: for each permanent material requested with a unit value greater than ten minimum wages, the researcher must submit three budgets or a letter of exclusivity and explanation of why the request is reasonable, if there is only one vendor. f) Data management plan, prepared according to the guidelines available at fapesp. br/gestaodedados .

The document should contain up to two pages, indicating: f. 1) What data will be generated by the project; and f. 2) How data will be preserved and made available, considering ethical, legal, confidentiality and other issues.

g) Manifestation of the Head of the Host Institution, according to the template available for download on SAGe. h) Information approved by the Host Institution on the institutional infrastructure, according to the template in Annex II available for download on SAGe, describing the institutional support and the infrastructure available and to be provided for the development of the project, including: h.

1) Current academic, administrative and technical support services at the Host Institution; h. 3) Personnel hired by the Host Institution to support the project.

This document, which must follow the template available for download on SAGe, must be signed by the Principal Investigator and the Head of the Host Institution with the authority to guarantee the commitments contained therein and shall be attached to the Grant Contract if the proposal is approved. 9. 3) Additional documents ( back to index ) The following additional documents may be requested by FAPESP: 9.

3.

1) For proposals in which the Principal Investigator is not a formal employee of the Host Institution, a non-employment contract must be submitted stating (among other items deemed necessary by the Host Institution) that: a) Any intellectual property created during the Principal Investigator's internship at the Host Institution will belong to the Host Institution; and b) If there are benefits from the licensing or commercialization of the Intellectual Property, the inventors will be entitled to a share of these benefits under the rules of the Host Institution and the federal Law no. 10.

973/2004. 10) Authorizations required by Law to perform the research ( back to index ) It is responsibility of the Principal Investigator and the Host Institution to request, obtain and hold all legal and required authorizations for the proper execution of the project, which must be issued by the control and inspection bodies relating to the nature of the research, when so required.

If the proposal is approved, the Grant Contract will contain a clause requiring that the Principal Investigator and the Host Institution have such authorizations and demonstrate them to FAPESP whenever requested. 11) Intellectual Property ( back to index ) FAPESP's rules regarding the intellectual property of the results of projects supported by the Foundation are described at fapesp. br/17939 .

12) Review of applications ( back to index ) 12. 1) Review process ( back to index ) Applications sent to FAPESP for different types of support opportunities are reviewed using the peer review system ( fapesp. br/analise ).

The maximum number of Grants that can be awarded must comply with the limits defined in FAPESP's annual budget proposal, approved by the Board of Trustees. For awarding Regular Research Grants, the reviews done by Area Coordinators and Associate Coordinators, based on the reviewers' opinions, intend to identify those proposals that are considered excellent in four components: a. Research Project; b.

Principal Investigator's Academic background; c. Institutional Support; and d. Requested budget.

The review process is carried out in five stages listed and described below: a. Eligibility of the proposals and indication of reviewers by the Area Coordinators. b.

Analysis and issue of reviews by the ad hoc reviewers. c. Analysis and recommendation by the Area Coordinators.

d. Analysis and recommendation by the Associate Coordinators. e.

Scientific Director's decision and analysis by the Executive Board and the Board of Trustees. 12. 1.

1) Eligibility and indication of reviewers for the eligible proposals by the Area Coordinators ( back to index ) In this phase, the Area Coordinators verify that the requirements specified in sections 5, 8 and 12. 1. 6.

b of these guidelines are totally met. Applications for Regular Research Grants with a total requested budget exceeding R$ 600,000 — excluding Research Overhead (Fringe Benefits and Direct Research Infrastructure Cost) and Institutional Research Overhead — will undergo an eligibility phase.

During this phase, (i) the compatibility of the originality and potential impact of the research project with the requested amount, and (ii) the qualifications of the Principal Investigator in terms of scientific leadership and management skills will be analyzed. For requests considered eligible, the Area Coordinators indicate which ad hoc reviewers to consult for issuing a review.

Requests that are considered ineligible are sent to the Associate Coordinators for analysis and final decision. If the Associate Coordinators agree that the proposal is ineligible, it returns to the Principal Investigator with a review clarifying the reasons for the decision. 12.

1. 2) Analysis and issue of review by the ad hoc reviewers ( back to index ) The ad hoc reviewers are specialists in the field of the projects being proposed. They analyze the proposals and issue reviews that contemplate each of the criteria mentioned in section 12.

1. 6. Their detailed reviews form the basis for the subsequent steps of the analysis.

12. 1. 3) Analysis and recommendation by the Area Coordinators ( back to index ) Applications for Regular Research Grant in each area are jointly discussed at periodic collegiate meetings attended by all Area Coordinators and Associate Coordinators.

This procedure favors the homogeneous application of the benchmarks of excellence established by FAPESP based on the experience of analyzing a large number of applications. In order to prioritize proposals, it is necessary to analyze the set of proposals and their respective reviewers' opinions.

This analysis is essential because different reviewers may use criteria with different levels of demand, so it is not possible to simply compare the concepts assigned by reviewers. To prioritize proposals rated as excellent, the panel will use the criteria described in section 12. 1.

7. Analysis Panel sessions take place within each field of knowledge, so that proposals are always analyzed along with others from the same field of knowledge. 12.

1. 4) Analysis and recommendation by the Associate Coordinators ( back to index ) The Associate Coordinators examine the proposals and compare the Area Coordinators' recommendations with the reviews issued by the ad hoc reviewers. Particularly, they verify consistency with FAPESP's excellence benchmarks and whether all the criteria in section 12.

1. 6 and, if necessary, those in sections 12. 1.

7 and 12. 1. 8 were properly considered during the analysis.

If there are any discrepancies, the Area Coordinators reunite for further discussion. Finally, recommendations are conducted to the Scientific Director. Evaluations by the Associate Coordinators take place separately for different major fields of knowledge.

12. 1. 5) Scientific Director's decision and analysis by the Executive Board and the Board of Trustees ( back to index ) Based on the analysis of the Area Coordinators and Associate Coordinators, the Scientific Director makes the final decision.

When there are any doubts or mismatch between the Coordinators' recommendations, the proposals are discussed with the Associate Coordinators before the final decision is taken. The Scientific Director's decision is submitted for analysis by the Executive Board, which will deliberate ad referendum of the Board of Trustees. 12.

1. 6) Review criteria ( back to index ) In the analysis by the ad hoc reviewers (section 12. 1.

2), Area Coordinators (section 12. 1. 3) and Associate Coordinators (section 12.

1. 4), the criteria used to classify the proposals are listed below and included in the reviewers' opinion form. Each request is analyzed considering four components: a) Research Project; b) Principal Investigator's Academic Background; c) Institutional support; and d) Budget requested.

a. 1) Original, daring, internationally competitive and perfectly presented research project. a.

2) The research challenges are perfectly formulated and situated in relation to the state of art and existing literature. a. 3) The methodology is proper and well-justified.

a. 4) What would be the advances that its results would bring to the field of knowledge in which it is inserted, if is successful. a.

5) The results are highly likely to significantly expand the frontier of knowledge in the field and therefore have a very significant scientific impact. a. 6) Be expected to have research results that will frequently cited by the scientific community of its field.

a. 7) The Principal Investigator and their team can feasibly carry out the research project within the period stipulated in the proposal. a.

8) Adequacy of the Data Management Plan for the proposed project, describing the digital data produced by the project and policies for its access. The Data Management Plan includes, among other things, description of the data used and produced, software, mechanisms and formats for storing, sharing and preserving this material, associated legal or ethical issues. b) Principal Investigator's Academic Background b.

1) Quality and regularity of scientific and/or technological output. Important elements for this analysis are: list of publications in journals with a selective editorial policy; published books or book chapters; patents in which they appear as inventor; other forms of intellectual property; research results effectively transferred and adopted by companies or the government; and any other information that may be relevant. b.

1. i) The fundamental document to be considered for the analysis of this item is the curricular summary ( fapesp. br/6351 ) presented with the proposal.

b. 1. ii) Periods of leave of absence on the part of the applicant due to maternity/paternity leave, disability, temporary disabilities or intensive care for ill, elderly or disabled people will be considered by FAPESP in the analysis of the curricular summary, under the terms of PR Ordinance no. 171/2024 .

b. 2) Demonstrated leadership experience in research projects with internationally competitive results related to the issue of the proposal under analysis. b.

3) International experience in research after the doctorate or active participation in international networks for research collaboration. b. 4) When applicable, demonstrated ability to train researchers, with an emphasis on recent activity in student guidance.

b. 5) Results obtained by the applicant with previous funding from FAPESP. b.

6) Other remarks about the researcher's scientific, technological and academic output, which are relevant to the analysis of the viability and scientific quality of the proposal. c. 1) The support guaranteed by the Host Institution is well explained in the proposal (Annex II) and perfectly meets FAPESP's requirements for administrative and management services.

c. 2) The infrastructure for research (and postgraduate studies, if applicable) offered by the Host Institution allows for the development of the proposed research project. d.

1) Necessity of the Equipment and Permanent Materials requested to carry out the project, also taking into account the infrastructure already available at the institution and the applicant's ability to use it. d. 2) Assessment of whether there are Permanent Materials and Equipment for which FAPESP should or could require the creation of a system for access by third parties not involved in this Project.

d. 3) Necessity of the requested Consumable Material to carry out the project. d.

4) Necessity and suitability of Third-Party Services requested to carry out the project, also assessing whether: d. 4. i) Third-Party Services are only of a technical and occasional nature, as determined by FAPESP rules; and d.

4. ii) If, in any case, it can be reasonably expected that the service requested should be provided by the project's host institution in return for FAPESP's support. 12.

1. 7) Prioritization procedure based on budget availability ( back to index ) Based on budget availability, and if there are many proposals that are considered excellent in the components described above, the following criteria will be used to prioritize the proposals: a) Quality of the results from projects completed with FAPESP funding. b) Potential for international exchange with groups of excellence.

c) Amount of investment in relation to expected scientific or technological contribution. d) Demonstrated effort and success in obtaining funds from other national and international sources in order to leverage FAPESP's investments. 12.

1. 8) The most common shortcomings observed in applications for Regular Research Grant ( back to index ) When analyzing proposals for a Regular Research Grant, the most common deficiencies are: a) Regarding the Project, as indicated on the reviewers' opinion form: 1. Poorly defined, excessive or incongruous objectives.

2. Excessively limited objectives. 4.

Minor contribution to the field of knowledge. 5. Insufficient scientific basis / inadequate methodology.

6. Questionable feasibility of the execution. 7.

Inadequate Data Management Plan. b) Regarding the Principal Investigator's Academic Background, as indicated on the reviewers' opinion form: