.jpg)
For the 2026/2027 academic year, 30 doctoral scholarships were once again advertised, the minimum number required to retain status as a National Doctoral School. In Italy, National Doctoral Schools are research training programmes run jointly by universities and research institutions, including international partners, in areas of strategic importance. They must involve at least five participating institutions and offer a minimum of 30 funded doctoral scholarships per cycle. Yet the official rankings published by UNIMORE show only 19 candidates admitted with scholarships, or 63.3% of the places available. As many as 11 scholarships, representing 36.7% of the total, therefore remained unallocated in the initial rankings.
This outcome deserves attention in the case of a national Doctoral School supported by a wide network of universities and research institutions, and established with undoubtedly considerable scientific and educational ambitions.
But there is another point to bear in mind: the 19 candidates offered scholarships are not necessarily 19 students who will actually enrol.
It remains to be seen how many of these candidates, already considerably fewer than the available places, will actually enrol. In light of what happened in previous rounds, there is no guarantee that all will accept their scholarships and begin doctoral study. Further offers may also be made as the rankings are used to fill vacancies, potentially altering the initial picture.
Only once enrolment procedures and any subsequent offers have been completed will it be possible to establish the actual number of new doctoral students. Given previous experience, even this modest initial result should not be taken for granted.
But there is another point to bear in mind: the 19 candidates offered scholarships are not necessarily 19 students who will actually enrol.
It remains to be seen how many of these candidates, already considerably fewer than the available places, will actually enrol. In light of what happened in previous rounds, there is no guarantee that all will accept their scholarships and begin doctoral study. Further offers may also be made as the rankings are used to fill vacancies, potentially altering the initial picture.
Only once enrolment procedures and any subsequent offers have been completed will it be possible to establish the actual number of new doctoral students. Given previous experience, even this modest initial result should not be taken for granted.
Christianity track: 17 scholarships, 13 candidates in the ranking, and only 8 scholarship recipients
The most striking case is the Christianity track, to which more than half of the scholarships advertised for the Doctoral School are allocated.
With 17 places available, the final ranking published on 29 September 2026 lists only 13 candidates, of whom just 8 were offered scholarships. The other five were deemed eligible but were not awarded scholarships.
This figure deserves particular emphasis: even if a scholarship were awarded to every one of the 13 candidates, 4 places would still remain unfilled.
In other words, the number of scholarships offered actually exceeds the total number of candidates on the final ranking.
The allocation mechanism is no less unusual, at least at first sight. The candidates ranked eighth through eleventh are deemed eligible but receive no scholarship, whereas the candidate ranked twelfth receives a scholarship tied to a specific research topic and funded by the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia. The thirteenth candidate is likewise declared eligible but receives no scholarship.
This is, of course, explained by the particular structure of the competition: many scholarships are tied to predetermined research projects and are awarded according to specific thematic rankings. This fact alone therefore provides no grounds for alleging irregularities in the selection process.
One question nevertheless remains: how effective can a system be in which a candidate's position in the overall ranking does not necessarily determine whether a scholarship is awarded, and the rigidity of thematic restrictions may leave places unused even when candidates deemed eligible are available?
Across DREST as a whole, no fewer than 25 of the 30 scholarships advertised are tied to specific research topics, while only 5 are open-topic awards. This approach clearly prioritises the project requirements of the funding institutions, but its ability to attract qualified young researchers and support their scientific independence deserves scrutiny.
Indeed, some of the proposed topics are so highly specialised that they considerably narrow, at least in principle, the pool of potential applicants.
Such detailed planning may respond to specific scientific needs. But if the outcome is that numerous scholarships repeatedly go unfilled, it is reasonable to ask whether candidates should instead be given greater freedom to develop their own research proposals.
With 17 places available, the final ranking published on 29 September 2026 lists only 13 candidates, of whom just 8 were offered scholarships. The other five were deemed eligible but were not awarded scholarships.
This figure deserves particular emphasis: even if a scholarship were awarded to every one of the 13 candidates, 4 places would still remain unfilled.
In other words, the number of scholarships offered actually exceeds the total number of candidates on the final ranking.
The allocation mechanism is no less unusual, at least at first sight. The candidates ranked eighth through eleventh are deemed eligible but receive no scholarship, whereas the candidate ranked twelfth receives a scholarship tied to a specific research topic and funded by the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia. The thirteenth candidate is likewise declared eligible but receives no scholarship.
This is, of course, explained by the particular structure of the competition: many scholarships are tied to predetermined research projects and are awarded according to specific thematic rankings. This fact alone therefore provides no grounds for alleging irregularities in the selection process.
One question nevertheless remains: how effective can a system be in which a candidate's position in the overall ranking does not necessarily determine whether a scholarship is awarded, and the rigidity of thematic restrictions may leave places unused even when candidates deemed eligible are available?
Across DREST as a whole, no fewer than 25 of the 30 scholarships advertised are tied to specific research topics, while only 5 are open-topic awards. This approach clearly prioritises the project requirements of the funding institutions, but its ability to attract qualified young researchers and support their scientific independence deserves scrutiny.
Indeed, some of the proposed topics are so highly specialised that they considerably narrow, at least in principle, the pool of potential applicants.
Such detailed planning may respond to specific scientific needs. But if the outcome is that numerous scholarships repeatedly go unfilled, it is reasonable to ask whether candidates should instead be given greater freedom to develop their own research proposals.
Alberto Melloni on the Christianity track selection committee
The selection committee for the Christianity track, the largest and the one showing the greatest numerical gap between scholarships advertised and candidates offered scholarships, included among its full members none other than Alberto Melloni, the originator and founder of DREST.
This is expressly confirmed by the Rectoral decree appointing the selection committees for the 42nd cycle, registered in the official UNIMORE bulletin on 24 August 2026.
The committee was composed as follows:
- Alberto Melloni, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, full member;
- Emmanuel Betta, Sapienza University of Rome, full member;
- Sandra Mazzolini, Pontifical Urbaniana University, full member;
- Paolo Bettiolo, University of Padua, expert member;
- Francesco Salvestrini, University of Florence, alternate member.
Melloni's participation in the committee is, of course, legitimate in the absence of specific grounds for incompatibility, although the circumstance takes on particular interest when considered in the context of DREST's organisational dynamics.
Melloni is not merely another member of the Doctoral School's faculty board: he is the person who conceived, promoted and built the project, bringing together a network of academic institutions and research centres.
Meanwhile, with the new cycle, coordination has passed to Federico Ruozzi, an associate professor in the same university department as Melloni and a close collaborator with whom he has shared numerous scientific and organisational activities over the years, including at FSCIRE, where Ruozzi serves as Melloni's deputy. The DREST website nevertheless continues to list Melloni as coordinator: an outdated listing that seems to reflect, at least at the level of institutional communication, the difficulty of distinguishing the Doctoral School's new formal arrangements from the continuing centrality of its originator and founder.
The handover does not, however, alter the most revealing fact about this selection: DREST's founder sat on the committee for the track in which fewer than half the scholarships available found an initial recipient.
Responsibility for this outcome cannot automatically be attributed to committee members, who must assess candidates on merit. It nevertheless prompts questions about the adequacy of the scientific planning and the project's ability to attract applicants.
Indeed, the founder's first-hand knowledge of the Doctoral School and its objectives should put him in a particularly strong position to assess the reasons for such a striking gap between the number of places planned and the outcome of the selection process.
Meanwhile, with the new cycle, coordination has passed to Federico Ruozzi, an associate professor in the same university department as Melloni and a close collaborator with whom he has shared numerous scientific and organisational activities over the years, including at FSCIRE, where Ruozzi serves as Melloni's deputy. The DREST website nevertheless continues to list Melloni as coordinator: an outdated listing that seems to reflect, at least at the level of institutional communication, the difficulty of distinguishing the Doctoral School's new formal arrangements from the continuing centrality of its originator and founder.
The handover does not, however, alter the most revealing fact about this selection: DREST's founder sat on the committee for the track in which fewer than half the scholarships available found an initial recipient.
Responsibility for this outcome cannot automatically be attributed to committee members, who must assess candidates on merit. It nevertheless prompts questions about the adequacy of the scientific planning and the project's ability to attract applicants.
Indeed, the founder's first-hand knowledge of the Doctoral School and its objectives should put him in a particularly strong position to assess the reasons for such a striking gap between the number of places planned and the outcome of the selection process.
The curious routine of thirty scholarships, mostly funded ‘internally’
As already documented, the gap between advertised scholarships and actual doctoral study is nothing new in DREST's history.
In the 38th cycle, 55 scholarships were advertised, compared with 35 doctoral students identified in subsequent reviews; in the 39th cycle, 41 scholarships against 30 students; and in the 40th cycle, 30 scholarships against 19 students.
For the 41st cycle, covering the 2025/2026 academic year, the initial rankings likewise recorded considerably fewer scholarship offers than the 30 places advertised. For this cycle, as for the others, it is important to distinguish scholarships awarded according to the rankings from actual enrolments: with 30 scholarships advertised, the official DREST website currently lists only 14 doctoral students, amounting to 46.7% of the places available. The shortfall for the 41st cycle was therefore a full 16 places, equivalent to 53.3% of the scholarships advertised. In other words, the number of doctoral students currently listed is less than half the number of places advertised: an especially telling figure that raises serious questions about the Doctoral School's ability to attract applicants and the effectiveness of its planning.
As we noted in our previous investigation of the Melloni system, it is also significant that the vast majority of scholarships for the 42nd cycle are concentrated in the hands of a very small number of institutions: as many as 18 of the 30 scholarships, or 60% of the total, are allocated through UNIMORE, the Doctoral School's administrative host institution, while another 3 are allocated through FSCIRE, the Foundation for Religious Studies, which Alberto Melloni has directed for around two decades, through its affiliated Giuseppe Alberigo European School of Religious Studies. It should also be noted that 2 of the 18 scholarships allocated through UNIMORE are explicitly financed with FSCIRE funds, for the research projects History of the Syriac Bible: The Case of Job and History of the Syriac Bible: The Case of the Psalter. In any event, taken together, 21 of the 30 scholarships, or 70% of the Doctoral School's total scholarship provision, are allocated through the administrative host institution and the foundation directed by DREST's founder, while only the remaining 9 are distributed among the other participating universities. Such concentration deserves attention in a project designated as a National Doctoral School.
The situation becomes even more interesting in light of the regulations governing National Doctoral Schools.
Article 11 of Ministerial Decree No. 226/2021 provides that, to qualify for this designation, a Doctoral School must make at least 30 scholarships available for each cycle.
And so DREST has duly continued to advertise precisely thirty scholarships for three consecutive cycles. This has been made possible, at least in terms of the distribution of places, above all by the predominant weight of UNIMORE and FSCIRE.
In the 38th cycle, 55 scholarships were advertised, compared with 35 doctoral students identified in subsequent reviews; in the 39th cycle, 41 scholarships against 30 students; and in the 40th cycle, 30 scholarships against 19 students.
For the 41st cycle, covering the 2025/2026 academic year, the initial rankings likewise recorded considerably fewer scholarship offers than the 30 places advertised. For this cycle, as for the others, it is important to distinguish scholarships awarded according to the rankings from actual enrolments: with 30 scholarships advertised, the official DREST website currently lists only 14 doctoral students, amounting to 46.7% of the places available. The shortfall for the 41st cycle was therefore a full 16 places, equivalent to 53.3% of the scholarships advertised. In other words, the number of doctoral students currently listed is less than half the number of places advertised: an especially telling figure that raises serious questions about the Doctoral School's ability to attract applicants and the effectiveness of its planning.
As we noted in our previous investigation of the Melloni system, it is also significant that the vast majority of scholarships for the 42nd cycle are concentrated in the hands of a very small number of institutions: as many as 18 of the 30 scholarships, or 60% of the total, are allocated through UNIMORE, the Doctoral School's administrative host institution, while another 3 are allocated through FSCIRE, the Foundation for Religious Studies, which Alberto Melloni has directed for around two decades, through its affiliated Giuseppe Alberigo European School of Religious Studies. It should also be noted that 2 of the 18 scholarships allocated through UNIMORE are explicitly financed with FSCIRE funds, for the research projects History of the Syriac Bible: The Case of Job and History of the Syriac Bible: The Case of the Psalter. In any event, taken together, 21 of the 30 scholarships, or 70% of the Doctoral School's total scholarship provision, are allocated through the administrative host institution and the foundation directed by DREST's founder, while only the remaining 9 are distributed among the other participating universities. Such concentration deserves attention in a project designated as a National Doctoral School.
The situation becomes even more interesting in light of the regulations governing National Doctoral Schools.
Article 11 of Ministerial Decree No. 226/2021 provides that, to qualify for this designation, a Doctoral School must make at least 30 scholarships available for each cycle.
And so DREST has duly continued to advertise precisely thirty scholarships for three consecutive cycles. This has been made possible, at least in terms of the distribution of places, above all by the predominant weight of UNIMORE and FSCIRE.
Thirty scholarships planned, thirty advertised. But far fewer actually awarded
The coincidence with the regulatory minimum is entirely legitimate, but its recurrence alongside such modest selection outcomes raises questions about the quality of the planning.
One could almost be left with the impression that the number of scholarships responds more to the need to meet a formal requirement than to a realistic forecast of how many young scholars can be recruited.
An impression, of course, not a proven conclusion. Yet when the figures recur with such regularity, they inevitably raise questions.
The numerical requirement is met as far as scholarships made available are concerned. What remains open to question is the Doctoral School's ability to turn those financial resources into genuine opportunities for training researchers.
Naturally, no one would wish selection committees to award scholarships to candidates who are inadequately prepared. But it is reasonable to ask why a project of this scale cannot attract enough qualified candidates to fill the available places.
Is this a problem of attractiveness? Of excessive specialisation in the research topics? Of how the programme is organised? Or of scholarship planning driven by priorities that do not always coincide with the actual demand for doctoral education?
It would also be interesting to know what happens to the funds associated with scholarships that are not awarded. Are they returned to the funding institutions? Can they be used for other purposes? Are they eventually reallocated?
These are matters on which public financial reporting would be particularly useful.
One could almost be left with the impression that the number of scholarships responds more to the need to meet a formal requirement than to a realistic forecast of how many young scholars can be recruited.
An impression, of course, not a proven conclusion. Yet when the figures recur with such regularity, they inevitably raise questions.
The numerical requirement is met as far as scholarships made available are concerned. What remains open to question is the Doctoral School's ability to turn those financial resources into genuine opportunities for training researchers.
Naturally, no one would wish selection committees to award scholarships to candidates who are inadequately prepared. But it is reasonable to ask why a project of this scale cannot attract enough qualified candidates to fill the available places.
Is this a problem of attractiveness? Of excessive specialisation in the research topics? Of how the programme is organised? Or of scholarship planning driven by priorities that do not always coincide with the actual demand for doctoral education?
It would also be interesting to know what happens to the funds associated with scholarships that are not awarded. Are they returned to the funding institutions? Can they be used for other purposes? Are they eventually reallocated?
These are matters on which public financial reporting would be particularly useful.
The ‘savings’ for UNIMORE (and FSCIRE)
Of the 18 scholarships allocated through UNIMORE, only 9 appear to have been awarded in the initial rankings. The other 9, exactly half, had no winner.
Particularly interesting is the case of FSCIRE, the Foundation for Religious Studies directed by Alberto Melloni. As already noted, the three scholarships offered directly through the Giuseppe Alberigo European School of Religious Studies, which forms part of FSCIRE, are supplemented by two more scholarships formally allocated through UNIMORE but expressly funded by FSCIRE, for projects concerning the history of the Syriac Bible (Job and the Psalter, respectively).
Of the five scholarships attributable overall to FSCIRE, only three appear to have been awarded: two of the three offered through the Alberigo School, and one of the two funded at UNIMORE. The other two had no recipient in the initial rankings.
The outcome is curious: while the availability of these scholarships helps DREST reach the threshold of thirty required for National Doctoral School status, not all of them translate into an actual financial commitment to train new researchers.
This creates the possibility of ‘savings’, although their amount and destination remain to be established. The rankings do not tell us whether the money associated with unawarded scholarships remains available to the funders, has to be returned, or can be reallocated. That would require examining the agreements and the actual transfers of funds.
It would be interesting to know how much UNIMORE, and especially FSCIRE, actually committed and disbursed for the 42nd cycle compared with the resources initially envisaged for the scholarships advertised.
The mechanism is undeniably unusual: making thirty scholarships available helps meet a fundamental requirement for National Doctoral School status, while the possible failure to award some of them could substantially reduce actual expenditure.
An economic benefit that has not, of course, been demonstrated. But the management of these resources raises a question that deserves a documented and transparent answer.
Can a National Doctoral School continue to operate like this?
.jpg)
There is, finally, a broader issue concerning DREST's sustainability and its ability to retain not only its status as a National Doctoral School but even its accreditation as a Doctoral School tout court.
The regulations establish specific requirements for accrediting Doctoral Schools and provide for their periodic review, including through assessments by ANVUR, the Italian National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes.
Formally making at least thirty scholarships available per cycle is an essential requirement for retaining status as a National Doctoral School. But what happens when, year after year, a substantial proportion of those scholarships fails to translate into actual enrolments?
This does not automatically imply the loss of accreditation. Nevertheless, it is legitimate to ask whether the recurring gap between places advertised, candidates admitted and students actually enrolled should form part of the overall assessment of how the Doctoral School operates.
Above all: for how long can a Doctoral School model that systematically offers thirty scholarships but repeatedly appears to struggle to recruit the same number of students be regarded as satisfactory?
Should the bodies responsible for accreditation not also examine actual recruitment capacity, the number of doctoral students who complete their programmes, and the scientific and professional outcomes they achieve?
Continuing to advertise thirty scholarships when far fewer candidates receive offers, and when the number who actually enrol could be smaller still, risks turning a numerical requirement into a rather peculiar exercise.
Thirty on paper. How many in reality?
The regulations establish specific requirements for accrediting Doctoral Schools and provide for their periodic review, including through assessments by ANVUR, the Italian National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes.
Formally making at least thirty scholarships available per cycle is an essential requirement for retaining status as a National Doctoral School. But what happens when, year after year, a substantial proportion of those scholarships fails to translate into actual enrolments?
This does not automatically imply the loss of accreditation. Nevertheless, it is legitimate to ask whether the recurring gap between places advertised, candidates admitted and students actually enrolled should form part of the overall assessment of how the Doctoral School operates.
Above all: for how long can a Doctoral School model that systematically offers thirty scholarships but repeatedly appears to struggle to recruit the same number of students be regarded as satisfactory?
Should the bodies responsible for accreditation not also examine actual recruitment capacity, the number of doctoral students who complete their programmes, and the scientific and professional outcomes they achieve?
This is not a call to invent automatic sanctions that the law does not provide for, but rather to ensure that verification of formal requirements is accompanied by a substantive assessment of educational effectiveness.
All this appears to confirm a trend that has become established over the years, as documented in our earlier investigation. In the 38th cycle (2022), 55 scholarships were advertised, but only 35 doctoral students were actually listed as enrolled; in the 39th cycle (2023), 41 scholarships for 30 students; in the 40th cycle (2024), 30 scholarships for just 19 students; and in the 41st cycle (2025), finally, 30 scholarships for only 14 active doctoral students, fewer than half the places available.
It should once again be emphasised that, while the comparison for previous cycles concerns the enrolled and active doctoral students identified in the respective reviews, only the initial rankings are currently available for the 42nd cycle. The final enrolment figure could therefore change, including as a result of withdrawals and offers made to candidates further down the rankings.
The central point remains: for five consecutive cycles, DREST has shown a substantial gap between scholarships advertised and the number of candidates offered scholarships or doctoral students actually recruited. This recurrence makes the explanation of merely occasional difficulties increasingly unconvincing and raises questions about the Doctoral School's planning and its ability to attract applicants.
No one disputes the importance of religious studies, or the need to support the training of new researchers in this field. On the contrary, the field's scientific and cultural value is precisely why the effectiveness of the methods employed should be scrutinised.
For ultimately, the success of a Doctoral School should be measured not by how many scholarships it advertises, but by how many researchers it actually manages to train.
All this appears to confirm a trend that has become established over the years, as documented in our earlier investigation. In the 38th cycle (2022), 55 scholarships were advertised, but only 35 doctoral students were actually listed as enrolled; in the 39th cycle (2023), 41 scholarships for 30 students; in the 40th cycle (2024), 30 scholarships for just 19 students; and in the 41st cycle (2025), finally, 30 scholarships for only 14 active doctoral students, fewer than half the places available.
It should once again be emphasised that, while the comparison for previous cycles concerns the enrolled and active doctoral students identified in the respective reviews, only the initial rankings are currently available for the 42nd cycle. The final enrolment figure could therefore change, including as a result of withdrawals and offers made to candidates further down the rankings.
The central point remains: for five consecutive cycles, DREST has shown a substantial gap between scholarships advertised and the number of candidates offered scholarships or doctoral students actually recruited. This recurrence makes the explanation of merely occasional difficulties increasingly unconvincing and raises questions about the Doctoral School's planning and its ability to attract applicants.
No one disputes the importance of religious studies, or the need to support the training of new researchers in this field. On the contrary, the field's scientific and cultural value is precisely why the effectiveness of the methods employed should be scrutinised.
Continuing to advertise thirty scholarships when far fewer candidates receive offers, and when the number who actually enrol could be smaller still, risks turning a numerical requirement into a rather peculiar exercise.
Thirty on paper. How many in reality?
DOCUMENTATION
DREST Doctoral School, 42nd cycle: call for applications, Rectoral Decree No. 592 of 7 July 2026, particularly Article 3, concerning the distribution of the 30 doctoral scholarships.
Ministerial Decree No. 226/2021, Article 11, National Doctoral Schools.
The Melloni System: Much Power, Abundant Funding, Few Results?, an earlier investigation by Cantiere Storico Filologico.
TABLES – DREST – 42nd cycle (2026/2027 academic year)
Scholarships advertised, awarded and unawarded by track
| Track | Scholarships advertised | Awarded | Unawarded |
|---|---|---|---|
| Christianity | 17 | 8 | 9 |
| Islam | 6 | 5 | 1 |
| Judaism | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Buddhism and Religions of Asia | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Law and Religions | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| AI and Religious Studies | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| TOTAL | 30 | 19 | 11 |
Scholarships advertised, awarded and unawarded by university or institution
| University / Institution | Scholarships advertised | Awarded | Unawarded |
|---|---|---|---|
| UNIMORE | 18 | 9 | 9 |
| Alberigo School (FSCIRE) | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| University of Palermo | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| University of Naples L’Orientale | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| University of Naples Federico II | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| University for Foreigners of Perugia | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Ca’ Foscari University of Venice | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| University of Campania ‘Luigi Vanvitelli’ | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| TOTAL | 30 | 19 | 11 |
Sources: official call for applications, Article 3 and UNIMORE rankings.
Overall scholarship allocation rate: 63.3%. Unawarded scholarships: 36.7%
TABLE – DREST – From the 38th cycle (2022/2023 academic year) to the 41st cycle (2025/2026 academic year)
Scholarships advertised and active doctoral students listed on the official DREST website
| Cycle | Scholarships advertised | Active doctoral students | Difference | Shortfall % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| XXXVIII (2022) | 55 | 35 | 20 | 36,4% |
| XXXIX (2023) | 41 | 30 | 11 | 26,8% |
| XL (2024) | 30 | 19 | 11 | 36,7% |
| XLI (2025) | 30 | 14 | 16 | 53,3% |
| TOTAL | 156 | 98 | 58 | 37,2% |
Sources: official DREST calls for applications for cycles 38–41 and names of doctoral students listed on the official DREST website, accessed on 10 October 2026. The difference between scholarships advertised and students listed does not necessarily equal the number of scholarships initially awarded, as it may also reflect later withdrawals, transfers or changes to the public listing.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento