Versão em português

Guidelines for the Young Investigators in Emerging Institutions Grants

Guidelines for the Young Investigators in Emerging Institutions Grants

(Photo: Eduardo Cesar)

Grants and fellowships awarded in this program (FAPESP Virtual Library)

The Young Investigators Awards envisage the creation of opportunities for highly qualified young researchers (or group of young researchers), especially in emerging research institutions in the State of São Paulo, Brazil. Proposals of new research areas in traditional institutions are also eligible.

This Program is part of FAPESP's strategy to strengthen the State research institutions, favouring the creation of new research groups that will work on state-of-the-art areas that are internationally relevant and new to the state of São Paulo.

The awarded grants, led by early-career investigators, must be scientifically sound in order to create new research groups in Institutions without research tradition or new research areas in traditional Institutions.

The resources for awarded research grants will be readily available in order to quickly ensure the conditions for the full and autonomous development of the research project. Additional solicitations such as support for visiting investigators or for equipment repairs will be secured through a quick analysis process. Furthermore, priority will be given to fellowship applications with equal merits. The Program also allows resources to be applied in the infra structure of Emerging Institutions in order to make the research projects viable.


1) Purpose (Back)

The purpose of the Young Researchers in Emerging Institutions Program is to enable the creation of job opportunities for highly qualified young researchers or group of young researchers, especially in emerging research institutions. Proposals of new research areas in traditional Institutions are also eligible.

This Program is part of FAPESP´s strategy to strengthen the State research institutions, favouring the beginning of research groups that will work on state-of-the-art areas that are internationally relevant and new to the state of São Paulo.

The awarded grants, headed by early-career researchers, must be scientifically sound in order to create new research groups in Institutions without research tradition or new research areas in traditional Institutions.

The resources for awarded research grants will be readily available in order to quickly ensure the minimal conditions for the full and autonomous development of the research project. Additional solicitations such as resources for visiting researchers or for equipment repairs will be secured through a quick analysis process. Furthermore, priority will be given to fellowship applications with equal merits. The Program also allows resources to be applied in the infra structure of Emerging Institutions in order to make the research projects viable.

The Program awards research grants in a competitive basis. The applications will be reviewed in a comparative analysis taking into account previous realizations of the young researcher in terms of publications, and other parameters, that suggest the involvement in world-class research and in relevant topics in the research field. The awarded grants must be scientifically sound, of excellent quality and viable in the conditions it will be conducted.

FAPESP demands that the Host Institution acknowledges the purpose of this Program and offers for the awarded young researcher adequate conditions such as space, infra structure, time for research, technical and administrative support and the freedom to recruit students. FAPESP will take into account in the review process both the support and the relevant human resources policies of the Institution.


2) Attributes of the Young Research Award (Back)

2.1) Award format

a) The award is given as a Research Grant.

b) A Young Scientist Fellowship, in the form of a stipend, may be awarded to young researchers that are not hired by the Institution where the research will be conducted.

b.1) the researcher that is awarded with a Young Scientist Fellowship may not be hired.

b.2) the Young Scientist Fellowship is attached to an active Young Researcher Grant and requires exclusive dedication to the research with the exception of the conditions described in the Regulation CS - Nº 09/2008.

c) It is allowed to apply for a grant without the support of a research Institution. In these cases, if the reviews are positive, the Principal Investigator has 90 days to submit a letter of support from an interested Institution. Only then FAPESP will proceed to the final review of the application.

d) The allowable costs depend on the field of research and the details of the awarded grant. The approved budget will consider the operational conditions of the Institutions. Indeed, researchers that apply for grants to be conducted in less developed Institutions may be awarded larger grants than the ones they would be if they conducted their research in traditional Institutions. This way, FAPESP aims to create realistic and adequate conditions to the conduction of the awarded grant. 

2.2) Duration of the Young Researcher Grant and Fellowship

a) The Young Research Grant may last up to 48 months, with the possibility of a 12 months extension in exceptional conditions and justification approved by FAPESP.

b) The Young Researcher Fellowship, when awarded, will be approved for 24 months and may be renewed for extra 24 months if the duration of the fellowship does not exceed the duration of the Young Research Grant (check item 12.1 for guidelines to renew the fellowship). The Fellowship must not exceed 48 months.

b.1) The duration of a Young Researcher Fellowship added to the duration of previous Post-Doctoral Fellowships from other sources may not exceed the limit of 6 years. In this case, the Host Institution must explain the circumstances that will allow the definitive employment of the researcher.  

3) Application Requirements (Back)

3.1) Submission dates

Applications may be submitted to FAPESP at any date during the whole year. 

3.2) Definitions

a) The Principal Investigator (PI) is the researcher that is responsible for the preparation and submission of the grant proposal and the scientific coordination of the grant, if it is awarded by FAPESP. The Principal Investigator is always one of the Main Researcher of the grant.

b) Main Researchers (MR) are part of the team of researchers, chosen by the Principal investigator and approved by FAPESP, with an excellent research history and with essential and specific roles within the grant. The MRs may benefit from the additional complements and approved Awards.

b.1) In the Young Research Awards in emerging Institutes, the Principal Investigator is the only MR of the grant.

c) Associated Researcher (AR) are part of the team of researchers, chosen by the Principal Investigator and approved by FAPESP, that will collaborate in parts of grant.

d) Host Institution is the Institution where the research will be conducted and, usually, where the Principal Investigator is associated with. The PI does not necessarily need to be hired by the Host Institution but it is necessary to make a formal association between both parts that establishes compliance to the terms of the grant that must satisfy FAPESP. The Host Institution must ensure the safety and access to research materials and equipment, institutional support to the grant and the management of any Intellectual Property that may result from the grant. 

3.3) Principal Investigator requirements

The Principal Investigator must:

a) have a PhD or equivalent title.

b) have the support of a São Paulo State research institution.

b.1) It is allowed to apply for a grant without the support of a research Institution. In these cases, if the reviews are positive, the Principal investigator has 90 days to submit a letter of support from an interested Institution. Only then FAPESP will proceed to the final review of the application.

c) have an outstanding productivity in Research or Technology.  


4) Duration of the review process (Back)

The expected average length of the review process for this type of Award is about 120 days if there are no unusual incidents such as inquiries or problems with the reviewers.

a) This does not mean that applications that are submitted 120 days prior to the estimated start of the grant will be approved on time as this number is an average and there will be, for certain, applications that will take longer than that.

b) Application for Young Researcher Grants will be sent to three or more reviewers. For this reason, the duration of the review process is expected to be high.

c) In 2007, the average duration for the whole review process was 130 days. The median duration was 119 days.

d) In 2007, 80% of the applications were reviewed in less than 180 days.

e) Applications submitted in November and December may suffer an extra delay due to FAPESP holidays.

f) Even though FAPESP defines an expected length for duration of the review process for each type of Awards, and is committed to follow them, some applications may take longer to be reviewed as FAPESP has a greater commitment to the quality of the whole review process.

g) Indeed, the most important part of the review process is not entirely under FAPESP control: as all the applications are sent to be peer reviewed, it is not always possible, despite FAPESP efforts, to ensure that the reviews will be submitted before the regular deadlines.

h) Furthermore, reviewers may ask for clarifications before submitting a final review or even FAPESP may decide to send the application to an extra reviewer if it considers that the submitted reviews were not enough to justify a final decision.

i) However, experience shows that the average review processes lengths are followed in most of the cases, as it is possible to check in the Time/FAPESP report at FAPESP´s website (www.fapesp.br > A FAPESP > Estatísticas > Estatísticas de Tempos da FAPESP, in Portuguese only).
 

5) Terms of compliance (Back)

5.1) Principal Investigator´s Responsibilities

The responsibilities will be defined in the Fellowship or Grant Contract. Among the main responsibilities taken are:

a) The Principal Investigator must, at the moment of the application submission:

a.1) have no pending problems with FAPESP (have no progress or financial reports delayed or late reviews to be submitted). a.2) inform if the grant was submitted to other funding bodies and if there are other current grants.

b) In order to start the grant, when approved, the Principal Investigator must comply, through the Grant Contract, with the following terms:

b.1) To examine the Grant Contract in order to be aware of all rights, responsibilities and obligations.

b.2) To make arrangements that will ensure the success of the proposed timetable.

b.3) To make reference to FAPESP´s support in all divulgation formats (thesis, dissertations, papers, books, conference abstracts, webpages and any other media and divulgation formats) that result, completely or partially, from a Grant or Fellowship that is part of this Fellowship or Grant Contract;

b.3.i) The Principal Investigator must ensure that the divulgation of all content (including webpages) that that result, completely or partially, from a Grant or Fellowship that is part of this Fellowship or Grant Contract, except in scientific papers published in peer-reviewed scientific or technical periodicals, must contain the following statement: "the opinions, hypothesis, conclusions or recommendations contained in this material are the responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect FAPESP´s vision".

b.4) To inform FAPESP if the research project funded by an awarded grant also has been funded by any other private or public funding body. In these cases, the Principal Investigator must be clear about the source of the funding in all mentioned divulgation formats.

b.5) To consult FAPESP before accepting any award from any funding body, public or private, to fund the same research project.

b.6) To consult FAPESP before committing to activities that will require the absence from the Host Institution for more than 60 days.

b.7) To ensure the security of Intellectual Properties resulted from research funded by FAPESP.

b.8) To write reviews for FAPESP, ensuring that deadlines are respected, without any extra remuneration. 
 

5.2) Host Institution´s Responsabilities

a) The Host Institution must ensure adequate conditions such as space, infra structure, time for research, technical and administrative support and the freedom to recruit students as previously informed by the Principal Investigator and will be attached to the Fellowship or Grant Contract.

a.1) The Host Institution’s responsibilities will be described in the Fellowship or Grant Contract, which must be signed by the Institution representative that has the authority to ensure the necessary support, the Principal Investigator and FAPESP.

b) In particular, the Host Institution must ensure that the Principal Investigator and research group outlined in the approved grant will be allowed to use all the facilities (laboratories, computer network, library, databases, etc.) and services (laboratory technicians and administrative, workshop, importation, acquisitions and accounting staff, etc.) existent in the Institution and that are relevant to the grant execution.

b.1) If the grant is not executed or is stopped due to failure to ensure the conditions described above and without previously warning FAPESP, the Host Institution must completely reimburse FAPESP.

c) The Host Institution must have the conditions to accept the requirements of FAPESP´s Acceptance of Cession of Use and/or Acceptance of Donation of equipments and permanent materials acquired with the grants resources.

c.1) The Host Institution must also ensure that the Principal Investigator and research group will maintain properly and get insurance for those equipments and permanent materials for the duration of the grant and 10 years after its end unless it is otherwise authorized by FAPESP.

c.2) Agreementing to the 7th May 2007 Resolution from the Technical-Administrative Council, donation will only be formalized after the end of the Young Researchers in Emerging Institutions Grant.

d) The Host Institution must commit to ensure and facilitate access to equipments funded by FAPESP to researchers from State of São Paulo and outside in order to conduct qualified research projects.

e) The failure to follow the terms of the Fellowship and Grant Contract may impair future submissions from researchers associated with the Host Institutions.

f) The Host Institution must notify FAPESP if the Principal Investigator is absent or unable to work.


6) Restrictions (Back)

a) It is strictly forbidden to the Principal Investigator:

a.1) to be the Principal Investigator of more than one active Young Researcher Award or another Research Award.

a.2) to be the Principal Investigator of a Thematic Project at the same time.

a.3) to transfer funds from one grant to another even if the researcher is awarded by more than one project or if it is a follow-up project.

a.4) to spend resources after the end of the grant, as established in the Fellowship or Grant Contrct.

a.5) to change the approved grant (initial plan, etc.) or resources allocation without FAPESP´s approval.

a.6) use grant resources to fund other materials than the approved ones.

a.7) to use grant resources without previous authorization from FAPESP.

a.8) to invest grant resources in the financial market.


7) Allowable costs (Back)

It is not allowed to use the grant resources to pay for any type of salary, third-party services that are not technical and eventual, construction services, purchase of periodicals, trips (except for field work and research conferences), administrative staff and materials.

The grant budget submitted to FAPESP must be detailed and every item must be justified by the aims of the proposed grant. It is recommended to read the Financial Reports Manual http://www.fapesp.br/docs/formularios/manualpc_ur.htm.

The allowable costs are described bellow. 

7.1) Costs of the research project

a) Material to be purchased in Brazil and abroad;

b) Consumables to be purchased in Brazil and abroad;

c) Third-party services that are short-term and specialized to be hired in Brazil and abroad;

d) Costs for transportation and maintenance of activities directly associated with the submitted grant, including the costs of Visiting Researchers;

e) Fellowships: Scientific Initiation and Technical Training Fellowships, following FAPESP rules;

e.1) each Fellowship must contain a proposal, a work plan written in up to two pages, which includes a Title, Summary and a brief description of the plan (that allow an analysis by the reviewers). The recipient of the fellowship does not need to be specified but, if the grant is approved, the Principal Investigation must publicize the position and organize a selective process based on academic merit.

e.2) Technical Training Fellowships: the specific terms of this fellowship may be fond at www.fapesp.br/bolsastt.

e.3) Scientific Initiation Fellowships: the specific terms of this fellowship may be fond at www.fapesp.br/normasic.

e.3.i) fellowship recipient must have finished a number of under graduation courses that are relevant to the conduction of the project.

e.4) The Scientific Initiation Fellowships may also be requested separately, attached to Thematic Projects and Young researchers Awards following traditional procedures from FAPESP Fellowship Program.  

7.2) Additional Benefits Found

a) Additional Benefits Funds are given to the Principal Investigators of Young Researcher Awards and Thematic Projects in order to cover expenses in scientific and technological conferences and short-term research internships outside the State of São Paulo.

a.1) The total value of the Additional Benefits Funds allocated to the Principal Investigator will be defined in the Fellowship or Grant Contract and announced at http://www.fapesp.br/materia/1106.

a.2) The Principal Investigator is the only Main Researcher in the Young Researcher Award.

a.3) The presence in the scientific and technological conferences requires the presentation of a scientific paper associated with the project.

a.4) The presence in the scientific and technological conferences may be supported in exceptional circumstances that must be justified in the annual scientific progress report and subjected to a review.

b) Research Internship in Institutions outside the State of São Paulo or abroad, with duration no longer than 60 days, may be funded as long their necessity are justified by the needs of the project.

b.1) The Principal Investigators may only be absent from their Host Institution for a period larger than 60 consecutive days with previous FAPESP authorization.

c) As the concession of Additional Benefits Fund is automatic for Young Researcher Awards and Thematic Projects, the Principal Investigators are not allowed to apply for the Scientific Conference Awards or, in normal circumstances, for International Research Fellowships.

c.1) In extraordinary cases, the Principal investigator may apply for a International Research Fellowship in order to do a research internship for a period that is longer than two months when FAPESP considers that the internship is essential for the adequate execution of the grant. In such cases, the Fellowship will support the researcher for the period that exceeds the regular two months. Resources from transportation and the two regular months must be taken from the Additional Benefits Fund.

c.2) If there are Associated Researchers, they may apply for Scientific Conference Awards or International Research Fellowships associated with the Young Research Award or Thematic Project they are part of. This association must be authorized by a letter from the Principal Investigator of the Young Research Award or Thematic Project, in which the process number and the totle of the project are mentioned.

d) If a Young Research Award or Thematic Project are extended, more resources will be allocated to the Additional Benefits Fund proportional to the number of extra months and the number of Main Investigators of the grants, as long as the total duration of the grant, including the extension, is less than the maximum of 48 months predicted by the Program.

d.1) If a Young Research Award or a Thematic Project is extended beyond the regular 48 months, the Additional Benefits Fund will not be granted for the extra period.

e) The use of resources from the Additional Benefits Fund is limited by the values established by FAPESP for daily expenses and travel insurance. These values can be checked at http://www.fapesp.br/materia/1106.

f) The Principal Investigator must detail the use of the Additional Benefits Fund in the annual financial report. 
 

7.3) Research Infrastructure Overheads

The Research Infrastructure Overheads is composed of two parts:

a) A part for the Overhead for Direct Expenses with Research Infrastructure: equivalent to 15% of the initial total concession, in Brazilian Reais, that may be spent in infrastructural items associated to the Research Grant and managed by the Principal Investigator.

b) A quota for the Overhead for Institutional Expenses with Research Infrastructure: equivalent to 10% of the total initial total concession that must be spent in specific items that should be discriminated in an "Annual Plan to spend the Fund for Institutional Costs with the Grant Infrastructure" that must be approve by the Congregation or the highest council in the Institution. This quota will be conceded in a "Overhead to Support Institutional Research Infrastructure" in which the Overhead for Institutional Expenses with Research Infrastructure for all the grants approved in the year before for the Institution will be pooled. This fund will be managed by the Head of the Institution, a researcher appointed by the Head of the Institution and approved by the Congregation or the highest council in the Institution. This process must be open in cases in which the total amount of pooled resources is higher than R$10.000,00.

c) In circumstances in which more than one Department is associated with a Young Researcher Award, the Technical Fund will be divided into proportional quotas decided by the Principal Investigator and agreed by the other Main Researchers, if this is the case.

d) FAPESP statute forbids, for both parts of the Overhead, the funding of items that are not strictly related to research activities regardless the merit of the requisition. In particular, the following costs are not allowed:

d.1) Items that are only used for teaching and extension;

d.2) Administrative activities of any nature, including employment of staff;

d.3) Staff Salaries;

d.4) Construction work that increases the building area.

e) The detailed term for the use of the Technical Fund can be found at: www.fapesp.br/materia/3097.  

7.4) Research Infrastructure Grant

The Principal Investigator of a Young Research Award or Thematic Project may request funds for small construction work in order to ensure the necessary infrastructure for the research project in the grant application or in the submission of the first scientific progress report. New buildings are forbidden. The requisition must have a detailed justification and must have a counterpart from the Host Institution.  

7.5) Associated Submissions

Associated Submissions are the submissions that are associated with an active Young Research Award. This concept applies to Visiting Researcher Grants and the application to Scientific Initiation, Master Degree, PhD, Direct PhD and Post-Doctorate Fellowships.

a) The duration of Associated Submissions is restricted to the duration of the Young Researcher Award they are attached to without exceptions.

b) Associated Submissions must be approved by the Principal Investigator of the associated Young Scientist Award.

c) Submissions to FAPESP that are labeled as "Associated Submissions" but are not eligible will be accepted and treated as independent submissions.

d) Associated Submissions for Visiting Researcher Grants may not require external peer-review as they may be analyzed only by the Area Coordination.

e) Associated Submissions for Scientific Initiation, Master Degree, PhD, Direct PhD and Post-Doctorate Fellowships that are associated to Young Scientist Awards will take priority during the comparative analysis sessions as long as their academic merits are considered equal with the other submissions.

f) Associated Submissions must be made in a individual basis through appropriate forms and proper documentation as described in the proper guidelines. Additional documentation include an abstract of the Young Researcher Award, which will be essential to contextualize the review process, highlighting the fact that it is an Additional Submission to a Young Researcher Award and mentioning the process number.

f.1) These submissions are considered new processes by FAPESP with separated scientific progress and financial reports. The approved funds will not be subtracted from the Young Researcher Award.
 

8) Application format (Back)

Applications should be submitted in hard-copy, through mail, or through the SAGE system. If the application should be submitted as a hard copy, it should not be bound as this may delay the process procedures.

The required documents for the application are (the forms for hard-copy submission can be found at http://www.fapesp.br/materia/37:

1) Form to register into the Young Researcher Award.

2) Principal Investigator Complete Graduation Transcripts from the graduation Institution, with the complete name of all the courses, failed courses or course cancelation.

2.a) Clean transcripts that only show the final grade of courses which the candidate was approved will not be accepted.

3) Certificate of PhD Conclusion

3.a) This document may be submitted before the confirmation of interest, if the grant is approved.

4) If the Principal Investigator is foreign, it is necessary to submit a copy of the permanent visa or a temporary visa that is compatible with the duration of the project.

4.a) This document may be submitted until the signature of the Fellowship or Grant Contract if the fellowship, if the fellowship was approved.

5) Presentation of the research group (FAPESP form at http://www.fapesp.br/materia/37).

5.a) The Private Investigator may include in the research group:

i) Associated Researchers;
ii) Graduate students;
iii) Undergraduate students;
iv) Technical staff;
v) Administrative staff.

6) FAPESP Registration for the Principal Investigator and each of the Associated Researchers.

7) Biographical Sketch for the Principal Investigator and each of the Associated Researchers (less than 2 pages, including education and professional career, list of 10 main scientific publications, and indication of the quantity of scientific papers, conference presentations and students supervised).

8) Summary of the results originated from previous Fellowships and Grants from FAPESP, discriminating the title of the projects and process number (up to two pages).

9) Grant proposal: the proposal should be organized agreementing to the guidelines shown the Appendix I. Sections 9a through 9h should be in less than 20 pages, 1.5 space and font equivalent to Times New Roman. The sections are:

9.a) Cover containing the title of the grant proposal, the name of the Principal Investigator, Host Institution and a 20 line abstract (two, one in Portuguese and one in English).

9.b) Statement of scientific problem(s) to be tackled by the proposed project.

9.c) Expected Results

9.d) Scientific challenges and the means and methods to overcome them.

9.e) Timetable.

9.f) Dissemination and evaluation.

9.g) Other support

9.h) References

9.i) Workplan for Fellowships (Technical Training, Scientific Initiation). This item and the next should not be included in the 20 page limit mentioned above.

9.j) Budget and Financial Timetables

i) Consolidated Budget Spreadsheet, by category and by funding body (FAPESP and other sources of funds such as universities, institutes and other agencies).

ii) Spreadsheets for items to be funded by FAPESP, one for each category.

iii) Timetable for funds allocation, following the example that can be downloaded at: http://www.fapesp.br/docs/formularios/arquivos/cronogde.xls.

(1) If the grant is approved, at the time of the signature of the Fellowship or Grant Contract, the Principal Investigator may need to update the timetable in order to accommodate cuts to the budget.

10) Additional documents required for the grant proposal review:

10.a) Justification of why the Institution is considered an Emerging Institution and how the grant may effectively help to develop it (up to 2 pages).

10.b) Justification of each of the items requested at the budget.

10.c) Budget for each of the Permanent Materials to be bought in Brazil or abroad (it is not necessary to include quotes at the application).

10.d) Description of the institutional support and infrastructure available and to become available during the grant execution, including:

i) Academic, administrative and technical support found at the Host Institution(s), facilities and staff hired by the Host Institution(s) to support the grant.

ii) Description of the equipments found at the Host institution(s). FAPESP suggests the Host Institution to have a description ready, updated every year, to be officially offered to the researchers (see Appendix II).

10.e) Projection of the necessity of Additional Submissions.
 

9) Legal Authorizations necessary to approve the grant (Back)

The grant will only be approved by the Scientific Directorate after the submission of one or more authorizations and certificates described below, agreementing to each grant. All the authorizations described below are required by law. It is suggested to the applicants to apply for these with anticipation to avoid delays. The authorizations are related, but not restricted, to the fields described below. It is the applicant responsibility to look for information about getting those authorizations.

a) Reseach that involves Humans

a.1) Approval of the Research Ethic Committee and/or the National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP), agreementing to the rules established by the current laws (CONEP Resolution n.o 196/96).

b) Research that involves animal expirimentation.

b.1) Approval of the Animal Use Ethics Committee (CEUA) and other authorizations required by law (State Law n.o 11.977/05).

b.2) The animal can only be subjected to interventions recommended in the research protocol that constitute the search or in surgical training program, when, during or after the vivisection, receive special care.

b.3) Please refer to "Best Practices" and "Ethic Principles" guide at http://www.cobea.org.br/index.php.

c) Research involving Genetic Modified Organisms or Embroyonic Stem Cells.

c.1) Authorization from the Internal Biosafety Committee (CiBio) to conduct the research (Law n.o 11.105/05).

c.2) Certificate of Biosafety Qualification obtained from CTNBio for the Host Institution (Law n.o 11.105/05).

c.3) Research involving embryonic stem cells: authorization from Research Ethic Committee of the Host Institution and from the parents (Law n.o 11.105/05).

d) Research that involves Brazilian genetic patrimony/biodiversity with or without associated traditional knowledge.

d.1) Authorization from the Council for the Management of Genetic Patrimony and/or Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), agreementing to the current legislation (Peremptory Measure 2.186/01).

e) Research that involves nuclear power or radioactive materials.

e.1) The researcher must to follow the national legislation and the terms of the Nuclear Energy Commission (CNEN) in order to purchase, manipulate, transport, storage, disposal and other activities that are related to nuclear energy and the management of nuclear material (Law n.o 9.765/98 and Law n.º 10.308/01).

f) Research or activities that generate chemical or biological waste.

f.1) The researcher must follow the national legislation and the terms of the National Environment Council (CONAMA Resolution n.º 358/2005);

f.2) The researcher must follow the national legislation and the terms of the National Environmental Health Agency (ANVISA Resolution n.º 306/04);

f.3) The researcher must follow the State Decree no 8468/1976;

f.4) Authorization from the Host Institution’s Waste and Disposal Committee to conduct research. 

9.1) Documents required in order to sign the Grant Contract

a) Description of the institutional support and available infrastructure to be offered to the conduction of the grant, including:

a.1) Academic, technical and administrative services available at the Host Institution(s), facilities and staff hired by the Host Institution(s) to support the grant.

a.2) This document, that should follow the guidelines described in the Appendix III, must be signed by the Principal Investigator and the Host Institute representative that has the authority to ensure that the terms present in the contract will be followed and will be attached to the Grant Contract, if the grant is approved.

b) If the Principal Investigator that is awarded a FAPESP Fellowship without being hired by the Host Institution, a non-employment contract must be signed that contain, among terms that are considered necessary by the Institution, the following terms:

b.1) Any Intellectual Property right resulted from the Principal Investigator work in the Host Institution will belong to the Host Institution, and

b.2) If there are any dividends from the licensing or commercialization of the Intellectual Property rights, the inventors have the right of a shere, agreementing to the rules of the Host Institution and the Law 10.973/2004.
 

10) Intellectual Property issues (Back)

FAPESP terms on Intelectual Property rights of the results funded by the foundation are described at http://www.fapesp.br/pi. For the Young Researchers in Emerging Institutions Grants, a non-prescriptive summary is detailed bellow:

General Considerations

a.1) It is expected that the Principal Investigator will quickly prepare significant conclusions that were funded by Fellowships or Grants from FAPESP, for publications with authorship that reflects the actual contribution of each collaborator.

a.1.i) It is expected that the Host Institution of Fellowships or Grants from FAPESP will allow and support the publication of the collaborators that worked on the publication.

a.2) It is expected that the Principal Investigators will share with other researchers raw data, samples, collections and other support materials created or collected as result of research funded by FAPESP Fellowships or Grants for no more than the incrementing costs and within a reasonable time.

a.2.i) It is expected that the Host Institution of Fellowships or Grants from FAPESP will support and facilitate the sharing.

a.2.ii) Classified or privileged information must only be released in a way that will protect the privacy of individuals and subjects involved.

a.2.iii) Adjustment and, when essential, exceptions to this sharing policy may be determined by FAPESP in order to protect individual rights and/or research subjects, the results validity, collection integrity or to accommodate other legitimate interests of the funded researchers. The Principal Investigator may also request FAPESP for such adjustment.

a.3) It is expected that the Principal Investigators and the Host Institutions will share software and inventions resulted from FAPESP Fellowships or Grants or that these products will be widely available and applicable either for free of through the commercialization by licensed companies, or even the opening of companies for this commercialization.

a.4) FAPESP allow the Host Institutions to retain legal rights for Intellectual Properties resulted from FAPESP Fellowships or Grants if the previous conditions are kept. This is an incentive to the development and divulgation of inventions, software and publications while also increasing their usefulness, accessibility and development.

a.5) This incentive does not reduce, however, the Principal Investigators, their research groups and the Host Institutions responsibility, as members of a research community, to make their results, data and collections available to other researchers.

b) About Ownership

b.1) The Host Institution may be the only holder of Intellectual Property rights if the Host Institution has a Technological Innovation Department that is certified by FAPESP and a Management and Sharing of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement is signed with FAPESP.

b.2) If there is no Technological Innovation Department in the Host Institution that is certified by FAPESP, the Intellectual Property rights will be shared with FAPESP.

b.3) When the Principal Investigator is not hired by the Host Institution, there must be a signed non-employment contract in the terms described at item 9.1).

c) About the responsibility to identify opportunities to register Intellectual Properties.

c.1) It’s the responsibility of the researchers in charge of the awards and fellowships granted by FAPESP to be aware, at any given time, if their projects will or has the possibility to generate results that can be turned into a Patent, Model Utility, Industrial Design Right or any other form of Intellectual Right registration.

c.2) If the Head Researcher considers that the publication of results from a grant or FAPESP fellowship in journals, conference annals, dissertation, thesis or other divulgation formats, may damage the process of gaining Intellectual Property rights over knowledge generated with the FAPESP funds, the researcher must notify FAPESP or the Institution where the research is being conducted with anticipation in order to FAPESP or the Institution to guarantee the protection of the Intellectual Property right without hurting the publication.

c.3) The notification method will depend on the type of ownership and is detailed in the complete guidelines published at http://www.fapesp.br/pi.

d) In any case, FAPESP may determine, in the name of public interest, that all Intellectual Property resulted from a FAPESP Fellowship or Grant:

d.1) is licensed to third-parties by the patent owners; and

d.2) is manufactured in the State of São Paulo, if the licensing is exclusive.
 

11) Review and selection process (Back)

11.1) Review Process

There are two review steps: Eligibility and Merit Analysis. 

11.1.1) Eligibility

In this step, the application is reviewed by the Field Coordination and by the Assistant Coordination in order to determine if the academic record of the applicant is compatible with the purpose of the Program. 

11.1.2) Merit Analysis

The compatible applications will be reviewed for merit using the external aid of expert researchers in the knowledge area of the grant proposal. The qualities that will be evaluated by the reviewers are:

a) Principal Investigator:

a.1) The applicants must be an early-career researcher that has already a remarkable technical or scientific production for their career level, evaluated by the summary of their Curriculum Vitae.

a.2) The applicant must be amply apt to independently coordinate a research project in order to start the formation of a research group.

b) Host institution:

b.1) Is this an Institution (Unit, Department) that has not a consolidated research tradition?

b.2) Is this a new field of research in an Institution (Unit, Department) that has a consolidated research tradition?

b.3) The effects that the grant may have over the Institution, regarding the purpose of the Program, which aims to contribute to the start of new research groups and strengthen the State research system.

b.4) If it is an Institution with a consolidated research tradition, the application will only be approved if:

b.4.i. It is an applicant with an outstanding productivity for the career level, and

b.4.ii. Special circumstances (such as an application that proposes the start of a whole new research group at the Unit or Department) that justifies this Program support are identified.

b.5) Institutional compliance with the grant proposal, agreementing the terms of the Program.

c) Grant proposal:

c.1) Definition of the objectives.

c.2) Originality and importance for the intended contribution for the research field.

c.3) Scientific rationale and chosen methods.

c.4) Adequacy of the requested resources to the desired scientific or technological contribution.

d) Proposed Budget

d.1) Budget adequacy in relation to:

d.1.i. The project necessity;

d.1.ii. The applicant experience in managing it; and

d.1.iii. The Principal Investigator ability to fully take advantage of the requested resources.

d.2) The justification of each requested item. 
 

11.2) Proceedings

a) The review process of the applications submitted to FAPESP follow a peer-review system, which is used in the most inportant funding agencies of the world.

b) Every application is review by one or more researcher in the research field, which has no formal attachment to FAPESP, and prepares merit reviews in the quality of ad hoc reviewers.

b.1) These reviews are the main foundation of FAPESP decisions. It is not the role of FAPESP to review the applications but only to serve to mediate the application peer-review.

c) If the review recommends the rejection of the application, the applicant has the total right to appeal through a request to reconsider the decision based upon argumentations against the ad hoc reviewers comments.

c.1) The right to appeal – which may include the requisition of other ad hoc reviewers – is the necessary counterpart to the importance of the external reviewers to the Scientific Coordination decision.

d) FAPESP and international experience shows that the optimal of this review and selection process is dependent of the ad hoc reviewer’s anonymity. The degree of freedom and objectivity of the peer-review process is undoubtedly proportional to the warranty of the confidentiality of the identity of these reviewers.

d.1) In consequence, it is a determination of the Superior Council of FAPESP, it’s highest decision-making instance, that every request for ad hoc reviewers are joined by an express commitment with their anonymity.

e) On the other hand, the ad hoc reviewers must also commit themselves to keep their review secret, whose content is only known to the parts involved in the applications review process. This is a trust agreement that must not be violated.

f) The applicant declares, in the submission of a proposal to FAPESP, that:

f.1) is aware of the procedures involved in the review process;

f.2) authorizes that the application is reviewed following these procedures and, particularly, that it is reviewed by researchers that are chosen by FAPESP and whose identity will be kept secret.

g) The applications´s review and selection procedure is fully described at http://www.fapesp.br > Formas de Apoio > Sistemática de Análise e Seleção de Propostas.
 

11.3) FAPESP policy about Conflict of Interest

a) In order to maintain the high degree of credibility of its analysis and review procedures and also to avoid embarrassments to its reviewers, FAPESP requests that a reviewer ponders about the possibility of any conflict of interest. Agreementing to FAPESP, the following situations qualify as a potential conflict of interest:

a.1) Current or previous involvement with the research project;

a.2) Regular collaboration in the last few years with the research activities or publications with one of the applicant researchers;

a.3) A supervisor/supervisee with the applicant;

a.4) Commercial interest from the reviewer;

a.5) Family connection with any of the applicants;

a.6) Any association with the applicant that may be perceived as a violation of the review impartiality.

b) If one or more of the above circumstances are detected, or any other that mat characterize a conflict of interest, the reviewer must return the application immediately. If the reviewer is doubtful whether there is or not a conflict of interest, FAPESP Scientific Coordination may be consulted. 

11.3.1) Reviewer Declaration

When the review is signed, the ad hoc reviewer formally declares that "there is no circumstance that may characterize potential conflict of interest or that can be perceived as a violation of the review impartiality. The reviewer also commits to keep the secret about all the information regarding the application review, particularly about the reviewer identity and review content. 

11.4) Reconsideration request

a) In all its regular programs, FAPESP ensures the application the right to request a reconsideration of the initial decision if a reconsideration request is submitted. In order to make the reconsideration process quick and efficient, it is important that the request follows the FAPESP procedures for these cases.

b) In all the cases, the reconsideration request will be sent to be evaluated by the reviewer whose review justified FAPESP decision. For this reason, the rebuttals should be strictly technical in order to ensure an adequate response from the reviewer.

b.1) In particular, requests of reconsideration that try to disqualify the reviewer work will not be considered by FAPESP.

c) If, for any reason, the applicant believes that it is necessary and suitable to dispute the quality of the review or the suitability of the reviewer, this must be submitted as a separate letter, addressed to the Scientific Coordination, justifying the request to send the application to another reviewer.

d) In the applications in which the Scientific Coordination decides to use a second reviewer, this is only done after the initial reviewer is consulted. For this reason, the duration of the process may be significantly longer than the usual.

e) FAPESP is committed to create a dialogue between the applicant and the reviewer in the reconsideration requests. In some cases, this dialogue may change the initial decision or in the alteration of the grant in order to be approved. This possibility is considered a positive characteristic of this foundation. 

11.4.1) How to submit the reconsideration request

a) If the application was submitted as a hard copy, the reconsideration request should be sent through the "Talk to FAPESP' service, at www.fapesp.br/converse > Para pesquisadores > Solicitações > Solicitação de Reconsideração.

b) If the application was submitted through the SAGE system, the reconsideration request can only be sent using the SAGE system tools.
 

12) Scientific Progress Reports required during the Grant duration (Back)

a) The dates for Scientific Progress Report submissions will be defined at the Fellowship or Grant Contract. Their submission before the deadlines is essential for the allocation of further resources to the grant.

b) Usually, the deadlines to submit the Scientific Progress Report and the Final Scientific Report are (the dates written in the Fellowship or Grant Contract are the one that must be followed by the Principal Investigator):

b.1) 1st Scientific Progress Report until the 20th day of the 18th month of the grant.

b.2) 2nd Scientific Progress Report until the 20th day of the 34th month of the grant.

b.3) Final Scientific Report until the 20th day after the 48th month of the grant.

c) The existent resources will be automatically cancelled with the submission of the Final Scientific Report. 

12.1) Guidelines for the cases in which there is a Young Research Fellowship attached to the Grant.

a) If the Grant also includes a Young Researcher Fellowship, the Grant Scientific Progress Report will also be considered as the Fellowship Scientific Progress Report.

a.1) When the fellowship holder is benefiting from the Resolution CS no. 09/2008, the Scientific Progress Report must also describe the extra-fellowship activities done in the period, detailing the work-hours used on them.

a.1.i. If the extra-fellowship activities are paid, a financial statement from the paying source, detailing the nature of the services that are being payed, the duration of the service and the total payment.

b) The 1st Scientific Progress Report, to be submitted at the 18th month of the grant, will be used to decide about the first Fellowship extension for an extra 12 months.

c) The 2nd Scientific Progress Report, to be submitted at the 34th month of the grant, will be used to decide about the second Fellowship extension for an extra 12 months.

d) If the extension is denied, the fellowship holder must submit an Additional Progress Report for the remaining period (6 months in the first extension and 2 months in the second).
 

13) Financial Reports (Back)

a) The date to submit the financial reports will be defined at the Fellowship or Grant Contract.

b) The Financial Reports must be prepared following the guidelines found at: www.fapesp.br/materia/1416.
 

14) Changes to the Grant (Back)

a) The signature of the Fellowship or Grant contract by the Principal Investigator implies in the acknowledgement that the allocated resources will be enough for the viability of the grant, save unforeseen circumstances.

b) For this reason, it is recommended that Principal Investigators only sign the Fellowship or Grant Contract after they are certain that the budget approved by FAPESP will be, in the foreseen circumstances, enough to ensure the good conduction of the grant.

c) When there is no certain about that, it is recommended that the researchers do not sign the Fellowship or Grant Contract and submit a request to reconsider the approved budget that is justified. The request will be reviewed by the FAPESP reviewers.

d) As FAPESP acknowledges that unforeseen circumstances may require changes to the initial concession, there may be requisitions to change the terms of the Fellowship or Grant Contract through the release of an Addition to the Fellowship or Grant Contract, in the conditions detailed bellow. 

14.1) Requisiton of additional resources, justified by unforeseen circumstances, through an Addition to the Fellowship or Grant Contract. (back)

a) Request for Additions to supplement resources that are justified by unforeseen circumstances may be reviewed by FAPESP, if it is submitted with the Scientific Progress Report.

a.1) Requests for Additions to supplement resources submitted separately from the Scientific Progress Report will be reviewed in exceptional cases if it is demonstrated that the changes in the items and budget values could not be predicted at the moment of the Fellowship or Grant Contract or the submission of the previous Scientific Progress Report.

b) The requests must be submitted, with the justification, through the specific service available at "Talk to FAPESP" or in the SAGE system.
 

15) Appendix I: Guidelines to format the Grant Proposal (Back)

The Grant Proposal must clearly demonstrate the technical and scientific challenges to be overcame by the proposed research, the means and methods to do that and the relevance of the expected results to the advancement of the knowledge in the field.

Formatting

In order to ease the text reading by the reviewers, the text must be printed with double space paragraphs, fonts size 12, 3.5 cm left margins and 1.5 cm right margins. The Figures and Tables, if present, must have clear legends, must be numbered and referred in the text.

Grant proposal Organization

a) This is just a recommendation – following it does not guarantee the approval of the proposal.

b) It is suggested to read the reviewers forms (http://www.fapesp.br/materia.php?data[id_materia]=577) in which the points that are evaluated by FAPESP reviewers are clarified.

c) It is recommended that the grant is structured agreementing the box bellow. It is suggested to use the titles that are listed as (1) to (7) bellow as the section headings.

d) The following (1) to (7) items must occupy a maximum of 20 pages, using font size 12 and double space paragraphs.


Suggest Guidelines to format the Grant Proposal ( back )

Young Researchers in Emerging Institutions Grants ( back )

0) Cover containing the title of the grant proposal, the name of the Principal Investigator, Host Institution and a 20 line abstract (two, one in Portuguese and one in English).

1) Statement of problem: What is the problem tackled by the project and what is its relevance? What is the contribution to the field if succeeded? Mention relevant work in the area, as necessary.

2) Expected Results: What will be created or made as a result of the proposed grant? How the results will be communicate?

3) Scientific Challenges and the means and methos to overcome them: explicit the scientific and technological challenges that the grant proposes to overcome in order to obtain the desired results. Mention references that will help the reviewers to understand the problems that need to be overcome (or were not yet adequately overcame) and may be overcame with the methods and means of the grant proposal.

4) Timeable: when the grant will end? What are the breakthroughs that may be used to evaluate the grant progress and its conclusion? If the proposed grant is part of a larger project, only estimate the duration of the proposed grant.

5) Dissemination and evaluation: How the grant results will be evaluated and how they will be communicated?

6) Other support: Detail other research grants that are funding the project, the resources, materials and personnel but without including items such as the use of the Institution facilities that are already in use. Note that the authors of the selected proposals will submit an official letter signed by the Institution representative, confirming the resources and additional materials described in the proposal.

7) References: list the literature references mentioned in the previous sections.

8) Workplan for Fellowship (Technical Training, Scientific Initiation). This item and the next should not be included in the 20 page limit mentioned above. For each requested fellowship there must be a two-page Workplan that includes a Title, Summary and a brief description of the plan (that allow an analysis by the reviewers). The recipient of the fellowship does not need to be specified but, if the grant is approved, the Principal Investigation must publicize the position and organize a selective process based on academic merit.

9) Budget and Financial Timeables: spreadsheets can be found at http://www.fapesp.br/materia/554. Once filled, the spreadsheets will be part of the grant proposal, as item 8), even if the submission is made through the SAGE system. In any case, these spreadsheets must be submitted, together with the “Grant Proposal”, in one document.

9.a) Consolidated Budget Spreadsheet, by category and by funding body (FAPESP and other sources of funds such as universities, institutes and other agencies).

9.b) Spreadsheets for items to be funded by FAPESP, one for each category.

i) Spreadsheet for items of Equipment Purchased in Brazil

ii) Spreadsheet for items of Equipment Purchased Abroad

iii) Spreadsheet for items of Consumables Purchased in Brazil

iv) Spreadsheet for items of Consumables Purchased Abroad

v) Spreadsheet for items of Services Hired in Brazil

vi) Spreadsheet for items of Services Hired Abroad

vii) Spreadsheet for items of Transportation

vii) Spreadsheet for items of Per Diem

vii) Spreadsheet for items of Per Diem

9.c) Timetable for expenditures of funds requested to FAPESP

i) Timeable for project execution.

ii) Timetable for funds allocation, following the example that can be downloaded at: http://www.fapesp.br/docs/formularios/arquivos/cronogde.xls.

(1) If the grant is approved, at the time of the signature of the Fellowship or Grant Contract, the Principal Investigator may need to update the timetable in order to accommodate cuts to the budget.

10) Additional documents required for the grant proposal review:

10.a) Justification of why the Institution is considered an Emerging Institution and how the grant may effectively help to develop it (up to 2 pages).

10.b) Justification of each of the items requested at the budget.

10.c) Budget for each of the Permanent Materials to be bought in Brazil or abroad (it is not necessary to include quotes at the application).

10.d) Description of the institutional support and infrastructure available and to become available during the grant execution, including:

i) Academic, administrative and technical support found at the Host Institution(s), facilities and staff hired by the Host Institution(s) to support the grant.

10.e) Description of the equipments found at the Host institution(s). FAPESP suggests the Host Institution to have a description ready, updated every year, to be officially offered to the researchers (see Appendix II of the Guidelines for Young Researchers in Emerging Institutions Grants).

10.f) Projection of the necessity of Additional Submissions.

16) Appendix II: Description of the equipments found at the Host institution(s) (Back)

There must be submitted a list of existing equipment at the Host Institution(s) with all the equipment that have a value of more than U$ 20,000.00 and including:

a) Name of the equipment, manufacturer and model (ex: 7904 Tektronix oscilloscope);

b) Relevant specifications (ex: 500 MHz, 1mV, single beam);

c) Origin (Brazilian or foreign);

d) Year of purchase;

e) Cost at the year of purchase;

f) Researcher in charge of the equipment.

17) Appendix III: Information about the required institutional infrastructure, approved by the Host Institution (Back)

Description of the present infrastructure and the infrastructure that will be available in a timeframe that not impair the conduction of the research grant.

Process No AAAA/NNNNN-D
Principal Investigator: <>
Host Institution: <>

1) Staff

1.a) Available Staff

1.b) Additional staff that is required and will be available in a timeframe that not impair the conduction of the research grant.

2) Facilities

2.a) Available Facilities

2.b) Additional facilities (or facilities changes) that are required and will be available in a timeframe that not impair the conduction of the research grant.

Services

3.a) Available Services

3.b) Additional services that are required and will be available in a timeframe that not impair the conduction of the research grant.

Date
Signatures

____________________________
Principal Researcher
____________________________
Host Institution Representative

18) Appendix IV: Guidelines for Scientific Progress Reports (Back)

a) The Principal Investigator must submit the Scientific Progress Report (SPR) and the Final Scientific Report (FSR) following the timetable bellow:

a.1) 1st Scientific Progress Report until the 20th day of the 18th month of the grant.

a.2) 2nd Scientific Progress Report until the 20th day of the 34th month of the grant.

a.3) Final Scientific Report until the 20th day after the 48th month of the grant.

b) Guidelines for the Scientific Progress Report. The SPR must contain:

b.1) Scientific Progress Report Submission Form, found at http://www.fapesp.br/formularios/, filled and signed.

b.2) Project Abstract (up to two pages).

b.3) Evidences of the creation of strengthening of na Emerging Institution and the impact in the Host Institution (up to two pages).

b.4) Achievements for the period, preferably referring to the publications listed at the item b.7) (up to 10 pages).

b.5) Description and evaluation of the institutional support given during the period (one page).

b.6) Workplan for the next period (up to 2 pages).

b.7) A category list with scientific publications, patents, thesis and dissertations finished during the period.

b.8) When the holder of the Young Scientist Fellowship is authorized by FAPESP to carry out the activities described at the Resolution CS nº 17/2005, the Progress Report must include a section detailing the extra-activities carried out in the period, reporting the time spent on them.

b.8.i) If these extra-activities are paid, a declaration from the paying source that details the nature of the work done, the number of weekly hours, the duration of the work and the amount paid in order to monitor them.

b.9) If there hás been Techbical Support or Scientific Initiation Fellowships, attach a brief report folowing the instructions at http://www.fapesp.br/materia.php?data[id_materia]=2616.

c) Guidelines for the Final Scientific Report. The FSR must contain:

c.1) Scientific Progress Report Submission Form, found at http://www.fapesp.br/formularios/, filled and signed.

c.2) Project Abstract (up to two pages).

c.3) Achievements for the period, preferably referring to the publications listed at the item c.5) (up to 20 pages).

c.4) Description and evaluation of the institutional support given during the project (one page).

c.5) A category list with scientific publications, patents, thesis and dissertations finished during the project.

c.6) When the holder of the Young Scientist Fellowship is authorized by FAPESP to carry out the activities described at the Resolution CS nº 17/2005, the Progress Report must include a section detailing the extra-activities carried out in the period, reporting the time spent on them.

c.6.i. If these extra-activities are paid, a declaration from the paying source that details the nature of the work done, the number of weekly hours, the duration of the work and the amount paid in order to monitor them.