Ulrich Wiedner / Carlo Guaraldo HPH Status Ulrich Wiedner / Carlo Guaraldo Wien, 8.10.2016

Analysis of the result We consider the rejection of the HadronPhysicsHorizon proposal and the given motivations unfair and senseless. We remind that the HadronPhysics projects in FP6 HadronPhysics (2004 – 2008) In FP7 HadronPhysics2 (2009 – 2011) HadronPhysics3 (2012 – 2014) have been always in the top list, and in Horizon 1st Call HadronPhysicsHorizon got the same score of ENSAR2.

In Horizon 2nd Call, ex abrupto a successful community of 2500 scientists has been considered a starting community and requested to demonstrate the reasons for their application.

Some significant examples

(Evaluation Summary Report after 2nd Call Horizon) ESR2 (Evaluation Summary Report after 2nd Call Horizon) “The objectives of the proposal are presented in a generic way.” “There is no clear description on how the proposed objectives relate to previous work in this field.” “This lack of clearly stated, coherent objectives placed in a relevant context is a major weakness of the proposal.”

they have realized them! The HadronPhysics projects have had not only always clear and well defined objectives: they have realized them!

Each HP project, composed by about thirty work packages, which involve about 2500 scientists, has produced, along its duration, more than five hundred refereed publications/year. Each HP project has given many hundreds invited talks per year at the major international conferences. Each HP project has produced hundreds of PhD per year in all Europe. Each HP project has always received the maximum score in the mid term reviews made by the Commission.

Similarly, can be rejected the criticisms of the Panel regarding: - the research infrastructures - the measures to exploit and disseminate the project’s results - the technological fall-out - the quality and efficiency of the implementation - the consortium

ESR1 ESR2 The key facilities are providing trans-national access to the high level infractructures. The proposal will offer access to state-of-the-art infrastructures with high quality services and will enable users to conduct excellent research. The infrastructures to be involved in the TA activities are well chosen and of world-class nature. However, the presentation of the methodological approach for advancing beyond the state of the art, is mostly limited to a description of the current infrastructures.

As far as the research infrastructures we recall only that: The research infrastructures of any HP project have realized hundreds User-Projects, offering access to thousands users, which have spent at the infrastructures more than ten thousand person x days. In the last HP3, 149 User-Projects have been accepted, with 1.141 users and 13.698 days spent at the infrastructures.

ESR2 The inclusion of ECT* is particularly interesting regarding the opportunities it offers for discussion and/or development of new theories. However, these potentialities are only presented in the proposal in rather generic and qualitative terms, without any specific performance indicators.

As far as the comment that the program of ECT As far as the comment that the program of ECT* is “generic” and “qualitative”, this is another bad example of scarce knowledge. It is enough to give a glance to the ECT* website for discovering that, in particular, only in 2016, 11 (eleven) workshops dealing with hadron physics are in the programme. Definitely this is not a qualitative information. These are precise performance indicators with quantitative information

ESR1 ESR2 The proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project are very good. They are well organised and they guarantee the good effectiveness of the project. The work with young scientists is well presented. Measures to exploit and to disseminate the project's results include a website, research publications, presentations etc. Dissemination activities will make use of the existing, well-structured hadronphysics3.eu web site. The planned measures are generally adequate. However, there are very few specific quantified targets.

The measures are “adequate”, the website is “well- structured”, then a bizarre observation is made: “there are not specific quantified targets”. The meaning of this statement is obscure: “quantified targets” does it means perhaps a list of planned conferences in public institutions, seminars, open days, etc., as if it would be possible to fix these initiatives in advance, before knowing if they might ever occur?

As far as the quality and efficiency of implementation, the criticism of ESR that “the overall organisation into work packages has high granularity… and an overarching programme of work is not convincingly presented” One must remember that an organization in work packages has an intrinsic “granularity”, given by the presence of three blocs of activities, each one with a variety of lines of research. This implies that it is difficult to look for an overarching programme, but the very fact that all the activities perform, in complementary ways, research in the same field is the demonstration of an “overarching programme”.

As far as the financial allocation among participants within the consortium, the fact that the ESR considers it unbalanced with respect to the roles, one has to underline that some participant has requested explicitly only a kind of “certificate to have been financed by EC” – independently on the amount – with the motivation that for their agencies this was sufficient to receive the national support.

What action to take? Try to rescue minimally transnational access Contact ESFRI (Chair and representatives) Meeting with the TA providers in Frascati (27.9.) Meet with Philippe Froissard, Deputy Head of Unit Research Infrastructures (26.10.2016) Contacts with members of the program committee Discussions within the Steering Committee The goal should be at least a participation of hadron physics in the next call.