Guide · 12 min read

FCT IC&DT 2026: Step-by-Step Application Guide for Researchers in Portugal

The FCT Investigação Científica e Desenvolvimento Tecnológico (IC&DT) call is the backbone of bottom-up research funding in Portugal. The 2026 edition opens with a budget around €100M and success rates historically between 12% and 18%. This guide walks through every stage from eligibility to the post-decision rebuttal.

1. What IC&DT funds

IC&DT supports research projects in all scientific areas, led by a Principal Investigator (PI) hosted by a Portuguese R&I institution. Projects run 36 months by default (24 or 48 months allowed in specific programmes). Typical budgets sit at €50,000 – €250,000 per project, depending on scientific area and consortium size.

The 2026 call follows the same six scientific-area panels as recent editions:

• Ciências Exatas
• Ciências Naturais e do Ambiente
• Ciências da Engenharia e Tecnologias
• Ciências da Vida, Saúde e Veterinárias
• Ciências Sociais
• Artes, Humanidades e Cultura

Each panel is divided into evaluation sub-panels of 8–12 reviewers. Picking the right sub-panel matters almost as much as the science: a brilliant chemistry-of-cancer proposal evaluated by a clinical-oncology sub-panel will be scored on criteria that don’t fit.

2. Who can apply

The PI must hold a PhD and be affiliated (research contract or employment contract) with a Portuguese R&I unit. Co-PIs from foreign institutions are allowed (and strongly encouraged for proposals with international ambition). Each researcher can submit only one project as PI and participate in at most two others as a team member.

Eligible host institutions include universities, polytechnics, R&I units evaluated by FCT, hospitals with research mission, and certain non-profit research entities. PIs with active FCT projects are welcome to apply, but must justify the workload.

3. The proposal structure

IC&DT proposals are submitted in English, in two parts:

• Project description (15 pages, PDF): state of the art, objectives, methodology, work plan, risks and contingency, dissemination, impact. This is the core scientific document.
• Online forms: PI CV, team CVs (each capped at 2 pages), workplan tables, budget justification, gender plan (mandatory since 2023), open-science plan, ethics self-assessment.

The 15-page limit is strict and includes references and figures. Most successful proposals dedicate 5–6 pages to methodology, 3 pages to state of the art, 2–3 to impact and dissemination, 1 page to risks, and the rest to objectives and workplan.

4. Budget rules that bite

IC&DT funding covers:

• Personnel: PhD scholarships, research-fellow contracts, technician contracts. PI’s own salary cannot be charged.
• Consumables: lab reagents, software licences, fieldwork supplies.
• Equipment: capped at 50% of total budget. Equipment over €25,000 needs explicit justification.
• Travel and dissemination: conferences, fieldwork, publication fees (open access).
• External services: consultancy, sequencing services, publication services. Capped at 30%.
• Indirect costs: 25% of direct costs (paid to host institution).

Do not under-budget: reviewers penalise unrealistic budgets. A budget mismatched with the work plan signals poor planning. Conversely, an over-padded budget invites scrutiny on every line.

5. The evaluation

Proposals are scored 0–5 on three criteria, with weights:

• Scientific merit (40%): novelty, ambition, methodology, feasibility, state of the art.
• Impact (30%): societal, economic, scientific. Open-science plan and dissemination strategy.
• Implementation (30%): workplan, team, host environment, risk management, gender plan, data-management plan.

Two independent reviewers per proposal, harmonised in a sub-panel meeting. Panels rank proposals; FCT funds from the top of the ranking until the budget runs out. Funding cut-line typically lands around 4.0/5.0 for competitive sub-panels.

6. Common reasons proposals fail

• Sub-panel mismatch — the proposal addresses an adjacent question, not the one the reviewers care about.
• State of the art that reads as a literature review, not as a positioning argument.
• Methodology section that lists techniques without linking them to the objectives.
• Risk-and-mitigation table that’s a copy-paste of the project aims (“risk: aim 1 fails; mitigation: revise approach”).
• Gender plan and open-science plan written as boilerplate.
• Workplan tables that don’t match the methodology narrative.
• Team that includes a famous name as a co-PI but no real role for them.

7. The rebuttal

After evaluation, you receive the reviewers’ reports and have 10 working days to submit a rebuttal. The rebuttal is read by the sub-panel and can move scores both up and down. A good rebuttal:

• Addresses every point reviewers raised, even minor ones.
• Concedes when the reviewer is right (and explains how it doesn’t affect feasibility).
• Provides extra evidence (preliminary data, literature) for the points where the reviewer was wrong.
• Stays factual and short. Defensive or emotional language costs you scores.

8. The 12-week schedule

• Week -12 to -10: lock the project idea, validate sub-panel choice with a senior colleague.
• Week -9 to -7: first complete draft of project description.
• Week -6 to -4: peer review by 2–3 senior researchers outside your direct team.
• Week -3 to -2: final scientific draft, gender plan, open-science plan, ethics annex.
• Week -1: budget reconciliation, online forms, references checked, language polish.
• Week 0: submit at least 24h before deadline. The portal slows down on the last day.

Track every FCT call automatically

Grant Radar tracks the FCT (and ERC, MSCA, Horizon Europe, NIH, UKRI, Wellcome, plus 18 other funders) and ranks every open call against your ORCID profile. Free during the public beta.