Evaluation Process

TUM-IAS follows a strict multi-stage evaluation procedure to ensure the high quality of its Fellowships.

The evaluation committee involved is the TUM-IAS Advisory Council. It consists of 13-14 TUM professors, representing the various disciplines of TUM.


Stage 1
All applications undergo a first eligibility check by the TUM-IAS management with regard to the formal criteria of the respective Fellowship types. All eligible proposals are then made available to the Advisory Council.

Stage 2 
The Advisory Council comes together to review and discuss all proposals and advises the TUM-IAS director which proposals to put on a shortlist.

Stage 3
All shortlisted proposals are peer-reviewed by international independent experts (for more information, see below) in the candidates’ respective fields of research. A number of experts have been suggested by the candidate, others have been selected by TUM-IAS. All peer reviewers receive a detailed questionnaire with which to structure their review in order to ensure a maximum of comparability despite the multidisciplinary nature of the proposals.

Stage 4
The anonymized peer reviews are sent to the candidates for commenting (“rebuttal”) to ensure a maximum of transparency for the candidates and their hosts.

Stage 5
The Advisory Council comes together for a second time to review the shortlisted applications as well as the reviews and their rebuttals. On this basis, the Advisory Council recommends to the TUM-IAS director which Fellows to appoint (taking budgetary considerations into account).


Conflicts of Interest

All shortlisted applications for Hans Fischer, Hans Fischer Senior and Rudolf Diesel Industry Fellowships are evaluated by independent reviewers. In order to ensure that there is no actual or potential conflict of interest, we must ask any reviewers to refrain from evaluating the proposal if the following circumstances apply:

  1. First-degree relationships, marriage, life partnership, domestic partnership with the applicant and/or host.
  2. Personal (financial) interest in the proposal’s success or (financial) interest by persons listed under no. 1.
  3. Current (within the past three years) or planned close scientific cooperation with the applicant and/or host.
  4. Dependent supervisory relationship (e.g. teacher-student relationship up to and including the postdoctoral phase) with the applicant and/or host, extending six years beyond the conclusion of the relationship.
  5. The affiliation or pending transfer to the department or to the non-university research institute of the applicant or host.
  6. Any other situation that would compromise the ability to unbiasedly evaluate the proposal.