Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Report . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
ZENODO
Report . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Report . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Evaluation of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) 1000 Ideas programme

Programme Evaluation
Authors: Vingre, Anete; Machado, Diogo; Frantz, Florentine; Martin, Rima; Sutinen, Laura; Arnold, Erik;

Evaluation of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) 1000 Ideas programme

Abstract

The Austrian Science Fund’s (FWF) 1000 Ideas program was created to support radically novel, high-risk, high-reward (HRHR) basic research that is unlikely to be funded through conventional peer-reviewed schemes. It offers small, time-limited grants to explore bold ideas at an early stage, using double-blind assessment and partial randomization (lottery) to reduce bias and increase tolerance for unconventional proposals. This evaluation was commissioned by FWF and conducted by Technopolis between September 2025 and January 2026. It uses a mixed-methods approach combining surveys of applicants and awardees, qualitative interviews with researchers and decision-makers, program data, and econometric analysis of bibliometric outcomes. The program is benchmarked against FWF’s Principal Investigator (PI) program, which serves as the mainstream model for competitive project funding. The evaluation addresses six core questions: originality and risk, seed-funding effectiveness, differences in outputs, failure, the suitability of the selection process, and whether a standalone program is needed. see also the statement by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): https://www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20302733

Related Organizations
Keywords

Basic Research, Austrian Science Fund (FWF), Novelty, High-Risk, Programme Evaluation, Research Funding

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Green