Thematic Projects

• Home
• Programs
• Thematic Projects

Page updated on 08/20/2026 - Published on 02/09/2003

Guidelines for the Submission and Selection of Proposals for Thematic Project Grant

Current guidelines as from September 1st, 2026.

1) Purpose and characteristics (back to index)

The Thematic Project Grant modality is intended to support research projects with sufficiently bold objectives that justify a duration of up to five years, as well as especially favorable support and funding conditions, including the possibility of awarding Scholarships/Fellowships as Associated Submissions and complementary requests linked to the project.

Thematic Project Grants differ from Regular Research Grants by (i) the nature, boldness, and scope of the proposed research activities; (ii) the experience of the principal investigator and the proposed staff in the project's field; and (iii) its longer duration.

A Thematic Project Grant typically involves a staff of several researchers, often from various departments or institutions, to obtain high-impact scientific or technological results to advance the frontier of knowledge.

2) Duration (back to index)

Up to 60 months, with the possibility of an extension of up to 12 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) Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI): the researcher of the team, designated by the Principal Investigator and approved by FAPESP, with an excellent research background and whose participation is well specified in the submitted research project and essential for its development. For the Thematic Research Grant, FAPESP will approve up to three Principal Investigators on the staff.

c) 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.

d) 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.

e) Partner Research Institution: higher education and/or research institutions, whether public or private, that will collaborate in developing the research project submitted to FAPESP by contributing goods, services, or financial resources. Partner Research Institutions must declare their agreement to participate in the project by attaching a specific document to the proposal. Participation by Partner Research Institutions in the project is not mandatory.

5) Application requirements (back to index)

5.1) Principal Investigator and Co-Principal Investigators (back to index)

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

b) Hold a PhD or equivalent title.

c) Be a formal employee of the research institution in the state of São Paulo proposed to host the project.

c.1) Accreditation on a postgraduate program at the Institution does not configure employee status nor does it waive this requirement.

c.2) FAPESP might 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:

c.2.1) the nature of the institutional association;

c.2.2) the number of hours per week dedicated to research which is implied in this association;

c.2.3) the associated source of funding;

c.2.4) the duration of such association.

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

c.4) The Co-Principal Investigator may be a formal employee of a Research Institution in the state of São Paulo other than the one proposed to host the project.

d) Have availability, measured by work regime and current number of advisees.

e) Have proven experience and competence in the project's field of knowledge, as well as significant scientific or technological output. Further information on the requirements and on the Academic background of the Principal Investigator and the Co-Principal Investigators is specified in section 12.1.7.b.

e.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.

f) The PI should inform whether they are applying for or receiving a grant from other sources for the same purpose as the research proposal submitted.

g) Co-Principal Investigators must explicitly state that they are aware of and agree to the terms of the proposal and their duties in the project.

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 process, 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) Co-Principal Investigators (back to index)

For the duration of the Grant, Co-Principal Investigators must meet the following conditions and obligations:

a) Take all the steps assigned to them in the approved research project to ensure its success.

b) When requested by FAPESP, provide grant/fellowship/scholarship reviews in their field of knowledge, free of charge and within the deadlines stipulated.

c) Consult FAPESP, through the Principal Investigator, before committing to activities that will require their absence from the Host Institution for more than 90 days, according to CTA Ordinance no. 74/2023, available at fapesp.br/16110.

d) Consult FAPESP, through the Principal Investigator, before accepting any financial support from any other funding entity, whether public or private, for the execution of the same research project related to the Grant awarded.

e) 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 described at fapesp.br/11789.

f) Ensure adequate protection of any intellectual property rights resulting from projects supported by FAPESP, along with the Principal Investigator.

g) Ensure proper management of the data produced during the project, along with the Principal Investigator.

6.3) 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 is available at fapesp.br/12632.

e) Be aware that the Research Overhead - Institutional Research Infrastructure is intended to support the collective research infrastructure that benefits the research projects supported by FAPESP at the Unit, according to the Application Plan to be approved by the Unit's superior panel and submitted to FAPESP. The guidelines for applying the Research Overhead - Institutional Research Infrastructure can be found at fapesp.br/17937.

7) Restrictions (back to index)

The PI is forbidden to:

a) Be a Principal Investigator on another current Grant in the following modalities: Thematic Project Grant; Young Investigator Grant; Research, Innovation and Dissemination Centers (RIDC); Engineering Research Centers/Applied Research Centers (ERC/ARC); Research Partnership for Technological Innovation Program (RPTIP); or in Calls for Proposals, when this condition is described in the respective notice.

a.1) The Principal Investigator may submit a new proposal for a Grant in the modalities indicated, within their respective guidelines, during the term of a Thematic Project Grant. If it is approved, it can only begin after the previous Thematic Project Grant has ended.

a.2) Considering that FAPESP expects relevant dedication from the Principal Investigator to the research activities of a Thematic Project Grant, only in exceptional and well-justified circumstances may the PI request Research Partnership for Technological Innovation Program (RPTIP) during the term of the Thematic Project Grant. Justifications must be included in the "Observações/Manifestações" (Remarks/Comments) field of the proposal for review.

b) Be a Co-Principal Investigator on another current Grant in the following modalities: Thematic Project Grant; Research, Innovation and Dissemination Centers (RIDC); Engineering Research Centers/Applied Research Centers (ERC/ARC); Research Partnership for Technological Innovation Program (RPTIP); or in Calls for Proposals, when this condition is described in the respective notice.

b.1) Considering that FAPESP expects relevant dedication from the Co-Principal Investigator to the research activities of a Thematic Project Grant, only in exceptional and well-justified circumstances may the PI request Research Partnership for Technological Innovation Program (RPTIP) during the term of the Thematic Project Grant. Justifications must be included in the "Observações/Manifestações" (Remarks/Comments) field of the proposal for review.

c) Expend Grant resources outside the term of the Grant Contract.

d) Modify the approved research project (initial plan, dates, etc.) without prior consent of FAPESP.

e) Use FAPESP funds for non-fundable expenses or for any purpose other than those approved, except under the conditions available at fapesp.br/17938.

f) Receive Fringe Benefits in more than one process. This prohibition also applies to Co-Principal Investigators.

g) Submit applications to FAPESP for a Participation in Scientific Meeting Award, as the PI is already entitled to Fringe Benefits for this purpose. This prohibition also applies to Co-Principal Investigators.

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.

Fundable items include:

8.1) Costing expenses of the research project (back to index)

a) Permanent material acquired in the country and imported;

a.1) Multi-User Equipment: FAPESP will consider requests for acquiring large equipment under the Multi-User Equipments Program (MEU) only in exceptional and well-justified circumstances. After analyzing justifications, and if there is a recommendation to award equipment considered multi-user, the Principal Investigator will be instructed to open a new FAPESP process in the MEU modality to implement the equipment award. Rules and procedures for this submission can be found at fapesp.br/11195.

b) Consumable supplies acquired in the country and 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 or Partner Research Institutions, 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 respective 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;

e) Fellowships/Scholarships as Associated Submission, according to the rules described at fapesp.br/17940, of the following types: Scientific Initiation (SI), Masters (MS), Doctorate (without MSc) (DD), Doctorate (DR), Post-Doctoral (PD), Scientific Journalism, Teaching Fellowship - Pedagogical Improvement, Technical and Academic Training.

e.1) For SI Scholarships, the candidate must have already completed a sufficient number of subjects relevant to the development of the research project.

e.2) For MS, DD and DR Scholarships, the candidate The referred student must have been accepted into the postgraduate program of the project’s Host Institution, or of the Co-Principal Investigator's Institution if the latter is responsible for the Scholarship.

e.3) For Post-Doctoral Fellowships, an international selection process must be conducted with the submission of documents required at the time of implementation of each Fellowship.

e.4) For IC, MS, DD, DR and PD Scholarships/Fellowships, up to one BCO per modality may be granted to the Principal Investigator and to each Co-Principal Investigator on the staff approved by FAPESP.

f) Grant for research infrastructure: in the initial request or when submitting the first Scientific Report, the Principal Investigator may request funds for minor refurbishments to provide the necessary infrastructure for the project's development. Such a request must be supported by a detailed justification and must be linked to an appropriate Host Institution match.

8.2) Research Overhead (back to index)

a) Research Overhead consists of two parts:

a.1) Fringe Benefits;

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 Research Overhead, the 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 Thematic Project 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 Meeting and Equipment Repair Awards, as well as requests for regular Scholarships/Fellowships in Brazil and for the Research Fellowship Abroad (RFA).

8.4) Non-fundable items

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)

Thematic Project 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), it is possible to find documents that explain how to register users, prepare and submit proposals for Grants, and request the registration of Institutions.

Proposals will be analyzed in two phases:

a) Eligibility for the Thematic Project Grant modality.

b) Complete Proposal: for eligible proposals, Principal Investigators will be invited to submit Complete Proposals through a formal request for additional information and documents to be opened by FAPESP.

9.1) Proposals for eligibility (back to index)

a) All proposal fields marked with an asterisk (*) in SAGe must be filled in.

b) The Co-Principal Investigators who will be part of the staff must be indicated in the "Dados Gerais do Projeto" > "Pessoas Envolvidas" tab. For Co-Principal Investigators to be included in the proposal, they must be registered with SAGe and confirm their participation in the project. During the eligibility proposal phase, it is not necessary to indicate the other staff members: they can be included during the complete proposal phase if the proposal is considered eligible.

c) Curricular Summaries of the Principal Investigator and Co-Principal Investigators, elaborated according to instructions available at www.fapesp.br/6351.

d) Executive summary (maximum of 5 pages) of the research project containing:

d.1) Title

d.2) Summary

d.3) Outline of the research project and defense of its relevance and potential impact in relation to the international state of the art on its focal theme. The plan must justify specifically the requested support and the potential five-year timeframe in terms of the complexity of the problems and/or their scale and potential scientific relevance.

e) Budget to be requested from FAPESP, containing permanent equipment and materials, consumables, third-party services, Scholarships/Fellowships, and any other requested items. The budget must be filled in on the R$/US$ tab of the proposal in SAGe. The "Custo Total da Proposta" (Total Cost of the Proposal) includes the Direct Research Infrastructure Cost, Fringe Benefits, Import Provision, Institutional Research Overhead, Scholarships/Fellowships and the Research Overheads of these Scholarships/Fellowships. At this time, there is no need to submit three budgets for items of permanent equipment requested whose value exceeds ten minimum wages. The three budgets must be attached later, if the proposal is considered eligible.

Minor adjustments to the budget submitted at this phase may be made to the eligible proposals.

9.2) Complete proposals (back to index)

In this phase, the documents and information listed below must be submitted within a maximum of three months after the opening of the diligence with the communication of eligibility:

9.2.1) Staff description (back to index)

In addition to the Principal Investigator, the staff may include:

a) Up to 3 (three) Co-Principal Investigators, who must have been indicated at the eligibility proposal phase.

b) Associate Researchers;

c) Scholarship/Fellowship Recipients;

d) Students without a Scholarship/Fellowship, with well-defined tasks in the research project;

e) Technical support staff;

f) Administrative 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.

9.2.2) Documents required to apply for the Thematic Project Grant (back to index)

The following documents are required for the submission of the complete Thematic Project Grant proposal:

a) Research project. The project must clearly state its objectives, characterize its originality and be perfectly presented. It is expected that a project in the Thematic modality differs from other modalities by the nature, boldness, and scope of the proposed research activities.

The project body should not exceed 25 pages, excluding annexes.

b) Curricular summary of the Associate Researchers. The curricular summaries of the Principal Investigator and each of the Co-Principal Investigators should already have been attached at the eligibility proposal phase.

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 Scholarship/Fellowship Recipients are not necessary at the time of submission of the proposal. If the Scholarships/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) Manifestation of the Head of the Host Institution, according to the template available for download on SAGe.

g) Information approved by the Host Institution on the institutional infrastructure, according to the model 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:

g.1) Current academic, administrative and technical support services at the Host Institution;

g.2) Facilities;

g.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.

h) Data management plan, prepared according to the guidelines available at fapesp.br/gestaodedados. The document should contain up to two pages, indicating:

h.1) What data will be generated by the project; and

h.2) How data will be preserved and made available, considering ethical, legal, confidentiality and other issues.

i) Declaration of consent signed by the Head of a Partner Research Institution participating in the project.

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 Thematic Project Grant, the review done by Area Coordinators and Associate Coordinators, based on the reviewers' opinions, intends to identify those proposals that are considered excellent in five components: a) Research Project; b) Principal Investigator's Academic background; c) Research Staff; d) Institutional Support; and e) Requested budget.

The review process is carried out in six stages listed and described below:

a. Eligibility.

b. Indication of reviewers for the eligible proposals by the Area Coordinators.

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

d. Analysis and recommendation by the Area Coordinators.

e. Analysis and recommendation by the Associate Coordinators.

f. 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 5.1, 5.2 and 12.1.7.b of these guidelines are totally met, that the restrictions specified in sections 7.a.2 and 7.b.1 are respected, and that the budget is coherent for the number of co-principal investigators listed in the project staff.

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.

For eligible proposals, FAPESP will send the Principal Investigator a request to complement the proposal, in accordance with item 9.2 of these guidelines.

12.1.2) Indication of ad hoc reviewers for the eligible proposals by the Area Coordinators (back to index)

For eligible requests, after the complete proposal has been submitted, the Area Coordinators will indicate the ad hoc reviewers to be consulted in order to issue a review.

12.1.3) 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 12.1.7. Their detailed reviews form the basis for the subsequent steps of the analysis.

12.1.4) Analysis and recommendation by the Area Coordinators (back to index)

Applications for Thematic Project 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 a set of them 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 12.1.8.

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.

12.1.5) 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 12.1.7 and, if necessary, those in sections 12.1.8 and 12.1.9 were properly considered during the analysis. If there are any discrepancies, they are sent to the Area Coordinators for discussion. Finally, recommendations are conducted to the Scientific Director.

Evaluations by the Associate Coordinators take place separately for different major fields of knowledge.

12.1.6) 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 there is a 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.

12.1.7) Review criteria (back to index)

In the analysis by the ad hoc reviewers (section 12.1.3), Area Coordinators (section 12.1.4) and Associate Coordinators (section 12.1.5), the criteria used to classify the proposals are listed below and included in the reviewers' opinion form.

Each request is analyzed considering five components: a) Research Project; b) Academic background of the Principal Investigator and Co-Principal Investigators; c) Research Staff; d) Institutional Support; and e) Budget requested.

a) Research Project

a.1) The boldness, scope, originality and innovative potential of the project.

a.2) What would be the advances that its results would bring to the field of knowledge in which it is inserted, if is successful.

a.3) Internationally competitive and perfectly presented research project.

a.4) The research challenges are perfectly formulated and situated in relation to the state of art and the existing literature.

a.5) The methodology is proper and well-justified.

a.6) The results are highly likely to significantly expand the frontier of knowledge in the field and therefore have a very significant scientific impact.

a.7) Be expected to have research results that will frequently cited by the scientific community of its field.

a.8) The Research Project can be carried out by the proposer investigator and their team within the period provided for in the proposal, of up to 5 years.

a.9) 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) Academic background of the Principal Investigator and Co-Principal Investigators.

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 and that had a greater international impact.

b.1.i) The fundamental document to be considered for the analysis of this item is the curricular summary (www.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) Results obtained by the Principal Investigator and Co-Principal Investigators with previous funding from FAPESP.

b.3) The scientific results published by the Principal Investigator and Co-Principal Investigators in the research area of the proposed project have a high scientific impact.

b.4) Researchers with a demonstrated capacity for scientific leadership.

b.5) They’ve advised doctors and supervised post-docs in successful projects and some of these former advisees/supervisees have obtained permanent positions in internationally renowned research institutions.

b.6) They’ve advised doctors, masters and scientific initiation students with results recognized in the community.

b.7) In recent activities, they have demonstrated significant international exchange with groups of excellence.

b.8) Their works have international visibility, having presented lectures and conferences at the invitation of renowned institutions and events.

c) Research Staff

c.1) Analysis of the names suggested by the Principal Investigator and which ones qualify as Co-Principal Investigators — only up to 3 (three) researchers on the team who meet the requirements of item b and whose participation is essential to the development of the project will be considered as Co-Principal Investigators (Co-PI).

c.2) The contribution of each proposed Co-Principal Investigator is well-defined in the proposal, the weekly dedication of each is appropriate to the proposed objectives and tasks, and they have adequate scientific qualifications to successfully fulfill their part in the research project.

c.3) For projects carried out in academic institutions, the staff can count on an adequate participation of post-doctoral, graduate, and postgraduate students.

c.4) Adequacy of the quantity and activity plans proposed for the requested Scholarships/Fellowships as Associated Submissions.

d) Institutional Support

d.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.

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

e) Requested budget

e.1) Necessity of the equipment and permanent materials required to carry out the project, also taking into account the infrastructure already available at the Institution and the applicant's ability to use it.

e.2) Assessment of whether there are permanent materials and equipment for which FAPESP should or could classify as Multi-User Equipment, requesting the creation of a system for access by third parties not involved in this Project.

e.3) Necessity of the consumable material required to carry out the project.

e.4) Necessity and suitability of third-party services to carry out the project, also assessing whether:

e.4.i) Third-Party Services are only of a technical and occasional nature, as required by FAPESP rules; and

e.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.

e.5) Adequacy of the other values and items requested in relation to the objectives of the proposed project.

12.1.8) 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) Principal Investigator with excellent, demonstrated scientific leadership skills.

c) Principal Investigator and Co-Principal Investigators advised doctors and supervised post-docs in successful projects and some of these former graduates have obtained permanent positions in internationally renowned research institutions.

d) The Principal Investigator and Co-Principal Investigators demonstrate significant international exchange with groups of excellence.

e) The results of the Principal Investigator and Co-Principal Investigators have international visibility.

f) Budget balance between capital expenses, costing expenses and Scholarships/Fellowships, considering the nature of the project.

g) Compatibility between the budget requested and the number of Co-Principal Investigators.

h) Demonstrated effort and success in obtaining funds from other national and international sources in order to leverage FAPESP's investments.

12.1.9) The most common shortcomings observed in applications for Thematic Project Grant (back to index)

These are the most common deficiencies observed in the analysis of applications for Thematic Project Grant:

a) Regarding the Project, as indicated on the reviewers' opinion form:

1. Poorly defined, excessive or incongruous objectives.

2. Excessively limited objectives.

3. Unoriginality.

4. Poorly formulated research challenges.

5. Minor contribution to the field of knowledge.

6. Inadequate methodology.

7. Questionable feasibility of the execution.

8. The project has no potential to attract scholarship/fellowship recipients or visiting researchers.

9. Independent projects without a common focus.

10. Inadequate deadline.

11. Inadequate and/or insufficient Data Management Plan.

b) Regarding the Principal Investigator's Academic Background, as indicated on the reviewers' opinion form:

1. Does not fit the required profile.

2. Insufficient experience in the research area in which the research project is inserted, which may compromise its viability.

3. Scientific or technological output that does not attest to significant achievement as a result of their research activity, except under the conditions provided for in PR Ordinance no. 171/2024.

4. Insufficient experience in training researchers.

5. Poor international experience.

c) Regarding the Staff, as indicated on the reviewers' opinion form:

1. Scientific or technological output of one or more co-principal investigators that does not attest to significant achievement as a result of their research activity, except under the conditions provided for in PR Ordinance no. 171/2024.

2. The contribution of each proposed co-principal investigator is not clearly specified.

3. The contribution of other staff members is not clearly specified.

4. Incompatibility with projects of the other researchers on the staff.

5. Insufficient participation of post-doctoral students.

6. Insufficient participation by graduate and postgraduate students.

7. Inadequacy of the quantity and activity plans proposed for Technical Training (TT) fellowship recipients.

8. Inadequacy of the quantity and activity plans proposed for Scientific Initiation (SI) scholarship recipients.

9. Inadequacy of the quantity and activity plans proposed for Masters (MS) scholarship recipients.

10. Inadequacy of the quantity and activity plans proposed for Doctorate (without MSc) (DD) scholarship recipients.

11. Inadequacy of the quantity and activity plans proposed for Doctorate (DR) scholarship recipients.

12. Inadequacy of the quantity and activity plans proposed for Post-Doctoral (PD) fellowship recipients.

13. Inadequacy of the quantity and activity plans proposed for Public Education Research Program (PERP) fellowship recipients.

14. Inadequacy of the quantity and activity plans proposed for Scientific Journalism (SJ) fellowship recipients.

d) Regarding the Institutional Support:

1. The Institutional Support provided for in Annex II of the proposal does not meet FAPESP's requirement for administrative and management services.

2. The research infrastructure offered by the Host Institution does not allow for the perfect development of the proposed research project.

e) Regarding the Budget:

1. Items requested in the budget are not sufficiently justified.

2. Excessive cost considering the expected scientific or technological contribution or the probability of success of the project.

3. Overestimated budget.

12.2) Analysis deadline (back to index)

The expected average duration of the FAPESP review process for this support opportunity is approximately 120 days, assuming there are no incidents such as due diligence or return without a reviewers' opinion.

a) This number represents an average. Therefore, this does not mean that applications that are submitted 120 days prior to the estimated start of the grant will necessarily be evaluated within this time frame. Since the expected average time frame is 120 days, there will certainly be cases in which the period for a decision will be longer than that.

b) Requests for a Thematic Project Grant will be sent to four or more reviewers. For this reason, the review process may take longer than expected.

c) Considering that the specialists who participate in the review process of the proposals submitted to FAPESP ( ad hoc reviewers, area coordinators and associate coordinators) are mostly members of the academic community, and that in the period from December to January the Universities and Research Institutions in the state of São Paulo go on break and academic vacation, the Proposals submitted from October to January may suffer additional delays.

d) For each modality of funding, a typical period necessary to complete the review process is estimated. FAPESP takes responsibility for making every effort to observe this limit. However, the Foundation cannot guarantee that this condition will be always fulfilled, since FAPESP's top priority is to ensure the quality of the review and selection process.

e) In fact, the most important part of the review process cannot be fully controlled by FAPESP: all applications are sent out to ad hoc reviewers for their opinion, and it is not always possible, despite FAPESP's efforts, to obtain a return process within the regular review deadline.

f) Furthermore, reviewers frequently ask for clarifications before submitting their final review and occasionally FAPESP itself may decide to send the application to additional reviewers if it considers that the submitted reviews are insufficient to make a well-founded final decision.

g) However, experience shows that in most cases the expected average deadlines are met, as can be seen from "Estudo Tempos/FAPESP", available at fapesp.br/estatisticas/analise.

h) Considering the above and in order to allow for appropriate planning, FAPESP requests researchers to submit their proposals at least 12 months prior to the desired starting date of the research project.

12.3) Appeals for Reconsideration (back to index)

FAPESP guarantees to the applicant, upon submission of a well-founded reconsideration request for the initial decision, the right to a new review of the application. Reconsideration requests must be made in accordance with the guidelines described at fapesp.br/17928.

13) Scientific Report (back to index)

a) Scientific Reports must be presented on the date specified in the Grant Contract of the Thematic Project Grant.

b) Partial and final Scientific Reports should be prepared according to the template available at https://fapesp.br/17921.

c) Documents required to submit the Scientific Report:

c.1) Document with Descrição Sucinta e Justificada do uso de Reserva Técnica e Benefícios Complementares.

c.2) Formulário para Encaminhamento de Relatório Científico de Auxílios duly completed and signed (only for processes in printed format).

d) Presentation format:

d.1) Processes submitted via the SAGe system must have Scientific Reports submitted electronically, as described in the "Submissão de RC" manual, available at SAGe, under the link "Manuais".

d.2) For paper-based processes, Scientific Reports must be submitted in printed form, sent by post or delivered in person to FAPESP. In this case, the forms for submitting the report and describing the use of Research Overhead and Fringe Benefits must be signed by the Principal Investigator.

14) Financial Report (back to index)

a) The Guidelines for the Use of Funds and Financial Reports are available at fapesp.br/17938.

b) Financial Reports must be submitted on the dates specified in the Grant Contract. Guidance on submitting the Financial Report is available at fapesp.br/prestacaodecontas.

c) FAPESP allows the PI to appoint SAGe account users who support them in the preparation of the Financial Report. Detailed instructions on the preparation and submission of the electronic Financial Report, as well as on the indication of support users, can be found in the Researchers Support Manuals, available at the link "Manuals" at SAGe.

15) Changes to the award (back to index)

a) By signing the Grant Contract, the Principal Investigator acknowledges that the conditions and funds awarded by FAPESP are sufficient to enable the execution of the approved project, barring unpredictable circumstances.

b) For this reason, the researchers are advised to sign the Grant Term only after having assured themselves that the items and values of the budget approved by FAPESP are, under normal circumstances, enough to fully guarantee the successful execution of the project in question.

c) In the case of uncertainty, as accepting the grant, researchers are advised to tick the box "Solicito Mudanças" and immediately submit a well-founded change request, which will be analyzed by FAPESP.

d) Recognizing that in certain cases, after the initial award, there may be circumstances that affect the development of the project and require changes to the agreed conditions, FAPESP accepts that requests may be made to amend the Grant Contract, under the conditions detailed at fapesp.br/17926/.

- The guidelines valid from March 1st, 2025 to August 31, 2026 are available at https://fapesp.br/18302/

---