Last verified: 11 August 2026
Three reviewers read every application to the Danish Diabetes and Endocrine Academy, and each of them files five separate scores. Fifteen numbers, averaged twice. If the final figure comes out below 3.0 on a scale of 5, the application is discarded before a chair ranks it and before the Board of Directors ever sees the title.
That threshold is published openly, along with the exact criteria those fifteen scores are given against. It makes the DDEA PhD scholarship one of the more writeable funding applications an early career researcher will face, provided you know what the reviewers are ticking. Thirteen PhD places are open in the 2026 round at DKK 1.1 million each, and applications close on 18 August 2026 at 23:59 CET.
How your score is actually built
The structure of the scoring tells you exactly how to structure the application, so it is worth understanding before you write a paragraph.
The Secretariat matches reviewers to applications using the scientific topics and keywords in your submission, drawing from DDEA’s international Grant Review Committee. The keywords you pick genuinely change who reads you. Each reviewer handles a maximum of ten applications, which means yours gets real attention rather than a skim.
Every reviewer gives five separate scores on a scale of 1 to 5:
- 5 is Excellent
- 4 is Very good
- 3 is Good
- 2 is Satisfactory
- 1 is Unsatisfactory
Four of those scores cover the evaluation criteria. The fifth is an overall impact score, and it is not required to be the average of the other four. A reviewer can rate a project modest on innovation and still mark it high on impact if the work is essential to moving the field forward. Reviewers also write strengths and weaknesses for every criterion and for the application overall.
Those five scores are averaged into a total score for that review. The three reviews are then averaged again into the total average score that decides your fate.
Applications at 3.0 or above go to the chair appointed for PhD scholarships. The chair ranks them by total average score, and where two applications tie, the tie breaks on the overall impact scores given by the three reviewers. The chair then sends the Board of Directors a prioritised list containing, wherever possible, twice as many candidates as there are places. The Board makes the final decision at a board meeting, with a videoconference arranged between the chair and the Board to discuss the recommendations.
Read that shortlist rule again, because it sets the real odds. For the eight open theme scholarships, roughly sixteen names reach the Board for eight places.
The four criteria, and what a strong answer looks like
1. The applicant
Reviewers look for research experience built during your master’s studies. Specifically:
- Publications in peer reviewed journals in your research area, accepted or published, alongside your years of experience in diabetes or other endocrine research
- Participation in national or international conferences and research meetings
- Exposure to an international research environment, either locally or through a research stay abroad
- Demonstrated technical or clinical skills relevant to the PhD project
Beyond the list, reviewers weigh motivation and commitment, the grades you earned during your master’s, and extracurricular activity or other qualifications that sharpened skills the project needs.
One thing worth knowing if your profile is clinical rather than purely academic: the guidelines instruct reviewers to account for different candidate backgrounds, noting that prior research experience varies for clinical researchers in particular, and that evaluation should consider the position applied for and the nature of the project. Make the clinical context explicit in your application so reviewers can apply that allowance instead of guessing at it.
2. The project and PhD plan
Reviewers want a well reasoned account of overall strategy, methodology and analysis, appropriate to the specific aims and robust against bias. They want the plan to challenge, change or improve current research or clinical practice paradigms using current theoretical concepts, approaches, methodologies, instrumentation or interventions.
Two requirements get skipped most often. The plan must carry enough scientific weight and research training to constitute a PhD, not just a project. And it must describe potential problems, alternative strategies and milestones for success, rather than presenting a path where nothing goes wrong.
3. Supervisors and the research environment
Your supervisors and collaborators need a live record of accomplishment that has advanced their field, evidenced by recent publications and international standing. Their expertise should be complementary and integrated rather than duplicated, ideally drawing in people from other disciplines such as basic science, clinical science, epidemiology or psychology, from abroad, or from other sectors.
Reviewers also check something more practical: whether the supervisors can actually get a PhD student across the finish line, meaning prior experience supervising PhD students, and whether they open a substantial international network for you. Governance, leadership approach and organisational structure between you, your supervisors and your collaborators should be transparent on the page.
4. The DDEA funding focus areas
Four areas, and every grant is expected to promote them.
- Internationalisation: collaborators based abroad, or a research stay abroad during the PhD that the host has already accepted. The collaboration must create real value for the project and for you rather than decorate the application.
- Interdisciplinarity: collaborators from other research disciplines, with a clear description of how that synergy serves the research goals, plus a planned change of research or work environment accepted by the host.
- Collaboration across sectors: collaborators from industry, general practice, university hospitals or formalised agreements with other sectors, producing genuine synergy. For the Industrial PhD scholarships this carries extra weight: the contributions of the academic partner and the industry partner must be detailed and the split between them clearly drawn.
- Patient and public involvement: this one has a format requirement. Your application needs a separate paragraph setting out explicit plans and strategies for PPI, discussing how involvement improves this particular study and detailing the benefits for patients, users and society.
The guidelines accept that meaningful PPI looks different in basic science than in clinical research, but they are blunt that every application must meet a baseline level of it. A missing or throwaway PPI paragraph gives away points in a scheme where a tenth of a point changes your rank.
What happens after you hit submit
The call opened on 30 April 2026. Once the deadline passes on 18 August, nothing visible happens for three months, and that silence unsettles a lot of first time applicants. Here is what is going on behind it.
- Review by the Grant Review Committee: September to November 2026
- Final decision by the Board of Directors: 18 November 2026
- Replies sent to applicants: 26 November 2026
Fourteen weeks, roughly, between submitting and hearing back. Plan your fallback options around that window, particularly if you are also holding a university admission offer running on its own timeline.
Where applications die before review
Before anything reaches a scientist, the Secretariat runs an administrative check on every submission for completeness and eligibility. Incomplete applications, and applications that do not meet the requirements set out in the call, are rejected without further review.
There is no correspondence step and no chance to send a missing annex on 19 August. Build in a buffer of several days for the parts you do not control: the supervisor statement, a host acceptance letter, a confirmation from an international collaborator. Those are the items that turn a good application into an ineligible one.
Who can apply
To be eligible for a DDEA PhD scholarship you must:
- Hold a master’s degree from a Danish university, or an equivalent foreign qualification approved by the Danish Agency for Higher Education and Science
- Not already be enrolled as a PhD student when grant notifications are issued on 26 November 2026
- Apply for enrolment at a Danish university
Projects can sit in any research field within diabetes, metabolism or endocrinology, with one exception. The three thematic scholarships are restricted to classical endocrinology and exclude research related to diabetes.
What the money actually covers
Thirteen PhD scholarships are on offer in this round:
- PhD scholarships with no specific theme, two thirds financed: 8 places, DKK 1.1 million each
- PhD scholarships in classical endocrinology, two thirds financed: 3 places, DKK 1.1 million each
- Industrial PhD scholarships, two thirds financed: 2 places, DKK 1.1 million each
Read the funding structure carefully, because this is where people get caught out. DKK 1,100,000 covers salary and tuition for two years of what is a three year PhD, and it does not cover overhead or operating expenses. DDEA funds two thirds on the condition that the remaining one third is secured, and you must send documentation of that remaining financing to the DDEA Secretariat within twelve months of receiving your grant notification letter.
In practice that means a conversation with your department or host institution about the final third before you submit, not after you win. A scholarship you cannot match is a scholarship you cannot take up.
Frequently asked questions
Can I submit to more than one DDEA PhD call in the same round?
No. Applicants may apply for only one PhD scholarship per application round across the various DDEA PhD calls. Decide early whether your project fits the open theme, the classical endocrinology theme or the industrial route, because you get one attempt per cycle.
I already hold a PhD. Is there anything for me in this call?
Yes. The same 2026 call covers eleven two year postdoctoral fellowships at DKK 1.2 million each, one industrial postdoctoral fellowship at DKK 600,000, and six visiting researcher grants of up to DKK 400,000 for international senior researchers visiting Danish institutions. Same deadline, same review machinery, different eligibility rules and slightly different criteria, so read the scheme page for the one you want.
My supervisor has published with someone on the Grant Review Committee. Does that count against me?
It does not, and it is handled procedurally. When you apply you are asked to declare whether your PI, co PI or any project team member has a conflict of interest with committee reviewers, such as joint publications or close collaboration within the last five years. Reviewers declare the same from their side. Where a conflict exists that reviewer is removed and another is assigned. Declare it accurately rather than hoping it goes unnoticed.
Will I find out what scores I received?
No. The review process is anonymous and applicants receive the reviewers’ overall assessments with the scores removed. Reviewers do not see each other’s scores either. You get the substance of the critique, which is the useful part, but not the numbers behind your ranking.
If I am rejected, can I appeal?
The final decision on awardees made by the Board of Directors cannot be appealed. What you do get is the reviewers’ comments, included in the rejection letter, and that is the most valuable free feedback most applicants will receive on their project all year. Treat it as material for the next cycle rather than as a verdict.
Do my collaborations need formal contracts?
Not necessarily. Collaborations for the internationalisation, interdisciplinarity and cross sector focus areas can be documented either by a collaboration agreement or by an email from the collaborator describing the nature of the collaboration, including things like joint publications, joint or funded applications, patent applications or spin off companies. An email is enough, but it needs to be specific about what the collaboration involves. Chase those emails now if you have not already.
This is one of the more transparent schemes you will apply to, because DDEA publishes both the criteria your reviewers score against and the exact threshold that eliminates you. Use that. Print the four criteria, map each one to a section of your application, and make sure the patient and public involvement paragraph exists as its own paragraph rather than a sentence buried in the impact section.
