Marie Curie Individual Fellowships Building knowledge about evaluation process and criteria into own proposal (Guide for Applicants Annex 2) Dr Dragana Avramov, PSPC avramov@avramov.org Brussels 6 November 2009 www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org
Evaluation Process Submission Individual reading Consensus Panel Finalisation Full Proposal Proposal forms Evaluators Evaluators Evaluators Rejection list Criteria Criteria Criteria Proposals in suggested priority order Eligibility COMMISSION EVALUATORS COMMISSION www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org
How a proposal is evaluated Stage 1. Individual readings Each proposal is read independently by three experts The experts each prepare an Individual Evaluation Report IER on that proposal www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org
How a proposal is evaluated Stage 2. Consensus Group The three experts who read the proposal meet together to come to a consensus view The group prepares a Consensus Report CR www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org
How a proposal is evaluated Stage 3. Panel meeting All the experts within the area meet together as a panel to review ranked list In case of ex aequo priority criteria are applied www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org
https://cordis.europa.eu/emmfp7/ Who are the evaluators? Must be registered in the database of experts for research activities FP7 EMM https://cordis.europa.eu/emmfp7/ Selected from the database on the basis of the high level of expertise relevant to a specific call www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org
What is expected from evaluators? Give a fair and clear opinion on each proposal Evaluate proposals against the Objectives and impact defined in the Workprogram Evaluate proposal as written. Make no additional assumptions, do not read between the lines Consistently apply the same standard of judjement to each proposal Evaluate on 5 criteria (and use sub-criteria as issues to be considered in the assessment) www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org
Responsibilities of evaluators Evaluators are: Independent : they do not represent their employer, nor their country Objective : evaluate the proposal as written Accurate : use the official evaluation criteria only Consistent : apply the same standard of judgment to each proposal Incommunicado : external contacts on evaluation are not permitted during or after the evaluation www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org
What does this mean for applicants? Reassurance that the evaluation process is of high quality, guided by principles of transparency, equality of treatment, fairness and transparency Never loose out of sight Evaluation criteria www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org
Evaluation criteria (example for IEF) www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org
Evaluation sub-criteria The sub-criteria are issues that the experts should consider in the assessment of the relevant criterion Failure to meet any of the sub-criteria is reflected in the overall criterion mark MAKE SURE YOU PROVIDE INFORMATION FOR EACH CRITERION AND EACH SUB-CRITERION www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org