1. COST European Cooperation in Science and Technology
Introduction to the COST Framework Programme

2. Knowledge sharing leads to… Common understanding of problems
“A strong desire to be independent is present in every good scientist. But sometimes, this desire can become a scientist’s undoing”
Knowledge sharing leads to…
Common understanding of problems
Coordinated activities, pooling resources
Reduced risks
Synthesis and re-combination of spread pieces of knowledge
Innovation and Synergies (1+1>2)

3. COST members’ Action participation in 2017

4. Dedicated measures for active ITC participation
COST Info Days
Targeted to ITC
combined with high-level meeting ITC government, including NCP
Proposals
Eligibility
External experts
Inclusiveness policy
COST Actions
COST Action Leadership
Conference grant for PhD students and young researchers
Pre-payment for STSM
COST Academy
Leadership workshop
Finance/Admin workshop
Science Communication training
Mentoring GH
Mentoring Chair

6. Near Neighbour Countries
Albania 33
Algeria 5
Armenia 17
Azerbaijan 1
Belarus 8
Egypt 10
Georgia 6
Jordan 6
Lebanon 2
Morocco 5
Palestinian Auth 6
Moldova 12
Russia 62
Tunisia 16
Ukraine 54
Example of Action

8. Engage as proposer of a COST Action

9. Collection every 9 months (and secondary proposers)
Next: 20 April 2018 – 12:00 CET
When?
One stage online submission of proposals
eCOST account
What?
COST Open Call
Who?
Main proposer
(and secondary proposers)
How many?
25 – 40 Actions approved per collection

10. Online submission tool (e-COST)**

11. Further details
The following details are valid for collection oc (collection date 20 April 2018)

12. Proposals Technical Annex 1. S&T excellence* 2. Impact
3. Implementation
General features
COST Excellence and Inclusiveness Policy
Specific objectives
Proposals
Network of proposers
Content
SESA procedure
New Submission, Evaluation, Selection and Approval (SESA) procedure follows the subsequent phases:
Submission: by a Main Proposer on behalf of a network of proposers
Evaluation:
External Remote Evaluation by Individual External Experts
Revision and Quality Check by Ad hoc Review Panels
Selection: COST Scientific Committee (SC)
Approval: COST Committee of Senior Officials (CSO)
Evaluation step
3 Independent External Experts
COST Expert data base
Fields and sub-fields of Science and Technology and, if needed, Key Words
Validated by Scientific Committee
Remote peer-review evaluation
Remote consensus shall be sought between the independent External Experts
The consensus shall not be imposed; independent External Experts may maintain their views on the proposal
Eventual differences in opinion of the experts resulting in a non-consensual decision will be handled and arbitrated by the Review Panel
Eligibility
coordinated by a main proposer in a COST Full or Cooperating Member state
represent a network of proposers from at least 7 COST Full/Cooperating Member states (min. ITC)
anonymous: no reference to the participants in the network of proposers
peaceful purposes
respect the word or page limits
written in English
Anonymous*
Min ITC
Format
Peaceful purpose
English
Eligibility!

13. Open Call for proposals – Technical Annex
SECTIONS
SUB-SECTIONS
S&T EXCELLENCE
Challenge
Specific Objectives
Progress beyond the State-of-the-art and Innovation Potential
Added value of networking
IMPACT
Expected Impact
Measures to Maximise Impact
Potential for innovation versus risk level
IMPLEMENTATION
Description of the Work Plan
Management Structures & Procedures
Network as a whole

14. Evaluation - SESA Step 1: External remote evaluation
3 independent external experts
Technical Annex
Step 2: Revision and quality check by Review Panels
Evaluation - SESA
Step 3: Selection by the Scientific Committee
COST policy and objectives
SESA procedure
New Submission, Evaluation, Selection and Approval (SESA) procedure follows the subsequent phases:
Submission: by a Main Proposer on behalf of a network of proposers
Evaluation:
External Remote Evaluation by Individual External Experts
Revision and Quality Check by Ad hoc Review Panels
Selection: COST Scientific Committee (SC)
Approval: COST Committee of Senior Officials (CSO)
Evaluation step
3 Independent External Experts
COST Expert data base
Fields and sub-fields of Science and Technology and, if needed, Key Words
Validated by Scientific Committee
Remote peer-review evaluation
Remote consensus shall be sought between the independent External Experts
The consensus shall not be imposed; independent External Experts may maintain their views on the proposal
Eventual differences in opinion of the experts resulting in a non-consensual decision will be handled and arbitrated by the Review Panel
Step 4: Approval by COST committee of Senior Officials - Results 7-8 months after submission

15. Evaluation criteria - step 1

16. Tips for the evaluation phase
Read very carefully the 13 evaluation questions on pages of the SESA Guidelines.
LABEL
DESCRIPTION 5
Excellent
The proposal fully addresses all relevant aspects of the question. Any shortcomings are minor. 4
Very Good
The proposal addresses the question very well, although certain improvements are still possible. 3
Good
The proposal addresses the question well, although improvements would be necessary. 2
Fair
While the proposal broadly addresses the question, there are significant weaknesses. 1
Poor
The question is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.
Fail
The proposal fails to address the question under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information.
60! => at least 7/13 Qs must score E and no more than 5 no less than VG.

17. Evaluation questions

18. Evaluation questions

19. Evaluation questions

20. Selection criteria (after evaluation)
2. Select among the retained proposals the ones for the final list on the basis of the following criteria applied sequentially:
a. S&T Excellence, Impact and Implementation as described in 6.3.
b. Compliance with COST Excellence and Inclusiveness policy with regard to Inclusiveness issue. A high degree of compliance with it shall be achieved by proposals:
i. Presenting a high proportion of COST Inclusiveness Target Countries represented in the proposal; and/or
ii. Having very well defined plans for including COST Inclusiveness Target Countries participants in the implementation of the Action; and/or
iii. Led by a Main Proposer from an ITC.
Hierarchy!

21. Selection criteria - step 2
c. Applied on equal steps :
i. Compliance with COST Excellence and Inclusiveness policy with regard to Early Career Investigators (ECI). A high degree of compliance with it shall be achieved by proposals:
1. Presenting a high proportion of Early Career Investigators in the Network of Proposers; and/or
2. Having very well defined plans for including Early Career Investigators in the implementation of the Action; and/or
3. Led by a Main Proposer being an Early Career Investigator.
ii. Compliance with COST Excellence and Inclusiveness policy with regard to Gender balance. A high degree of compliance with it shall be achieved by proposals:
1. Presenting a good gender balance; and/ or
2. Having very well defined plans for achieving gender balance in the implementation of the Action; and/or
3. Led by a Main Proposer of the underrepresented gender.
d. For proposals that shall be deemed equivalent after application of criteria under 2. a to c, achieving a balanced COST Actions’ portfolio and promoting interdisciplinarity. This shall be done by selecting proposals addressing Research Areas and/ or Science Sub-Fields that are less extensively covered among the existing COST Actions’ portfolio and those that are of a more interdisciplinary nature.

22. Tips for the selection phase
Make sure there is a good level of ITCs, ECI researchers and gender balance in the network of proposers
In the “mission and policies” section of your proposal describe specific measures and plans for engaging the target group of each dimension of the policy (ITC, ECI, gender balance) at both the leadership and participation levels of the Action

23. Open Call for proposals – key documents
Source: cost.eu/opencall
Online submission
Guidelines
Proposal template

24. General advice
Think carefully about your objectives (what you want) and the objectives of COST
Is there a critical mass of funded research/ researchers?
Added value?
Can your objectives be achieved via the COST Networking Tools and within the COST rules?
Are you open to new participants outside the initial network?

25. Contact and engage with us
Sign up to our news:
Contact:
Join us on our social networks:
@COSTprogramme