The scientific evaluation should be carried out according to the following criteria:

 (1) Scientific/Technological Excellence

(2) Methodology

(3) Project Management

(4) Importance of International Collaboration 

(5) Impact


Descriptive/explanatory questions to measure each criterion are added to the relevant sections in order to provide assistance for evaluation.

 Reviewers have to select only one score for each section from 1 to 6 and justify the reasons of given scores. If the text box allocated for explanations is not sufficient, it can be extended as needed.

 It is essential to treat with complete confidentiality during the evaluation process, and the documents related to project proposal must be protected carefully. The principle and ethical rules which must be followed during evaluation are detailed on the following page.




1. Projects must be evaluated objectively within the framework of scientific rules and criteria; equality of opportunity, personal / institutional relations and interpretations should not be taken into consideration.

2. Evaluation must not be done if there is a conflict of interest / overlap with a person on the project team. In such cases, the relevant Research Support Group should be informed promptly and the reviewer shouldn’t take place in the evaluation of said projects. Situations that can be interpreted as conflict of interest / overlap are as follows:

  • Being the thesis advisor / student,
  • Having collaborated together in the past three years, i.e. writing an article / paper / project / book together or planning to do so in the near future,
  • Being employed in the same institution or to be employed in the same institution in the near future,
  • Having made an opinion regarding the project and / or having contributed to the preparation of the project in any way,
  • To be the parties (adversaries) of disputes that have been submitted to the judiciary before,
  • Being relatives; even in the case of divorced relatives, having a blood relation in the third degree or being second degree relatives by marriage,
  • Having positive / negative thoughts or prejudices that prevent impartial action.

3. Panelists are expected to review and have knowledge about all projects to be discussed in the panel prior to the panel meeting.

4. Reviewers should be aware that all information related to the project proposal (names of the moderator, panelists, reviewers, evaluations or opinions of panelists/reviewers, content of panel meetings, and contents of Panel Joint Report etc.) and all correspondence between them and TÜBİTAK are confidential, and should act accordingly.

5. The content of the project proposal and panel information must not be shared with third parties and used by others.

6. The contents of the project proposal should not be used for personal purposes; Information in electronic form, written information, information notes, evaluations, and study and review notes must be destroyed upon the completion of the task.

7. Information regarding the evaluation of the project proposal must never be shared with the principle investigator or anyone from the research team (researcher, consultant, scholarship student).

8. Positive and negative reviews must be justified in the project proposal evaluations and these reviews must be prepared in such a way that the Research Support Group can notify the principle investigators in written form.

9. If the projects with the same or similar content belonging to the project team are also submitted to another national / international organization / institution, or have been supported/ are to be supported by another national / international organization / institution; or if another situation such as the violation of ethical rules has been notified the relevant Research Support Group must be informed by written notice and must be stated in the "Other" section of the form.

 I acknowledge that I have read and agree to the above mentioned terms and conditions. I declare and undertake that there is nothing preventing me from evaluating the project proposal, the number and title of which are indicated on the first page. I also declare and undertake to be in compliance with the rules and regulations of TUBITAK in this form and in all other tasks for which I will provide reviews and evaluations as Reviewer/Panelist. I hereby agree and acknowledge that the matter will be the subject of an examination to be conducted by TÜBİTAK Ethics Committee for Research Publications (AYEK) in case I behave contrary to the above mentioned matters.