Marie Curie Initial Training Networks ITN Building knowledge

Marie Curie Initial Training Networks (ITN) Building knowledge about evaluation process and criteria into own proposal Dr Dragana Avramov, PSPC avramov@avramov. org Brussels 6 November 2009 www. avramov. org avramov@avramov. org 1

Evaluation Process Submission Full Proposal forms Individual reading Evaluators Criteria Consensus Evaluators Criteria www. avramov. org Finalisation Rejection list Proposals in suggested priority order Eligibility COMMISSION Panel EVALUATORS avramov@avramov. org COMMISSION 2

How a proposal is evaluated Stage 1. Individual readings n Each proposal is read independently by three to five experts n The experts each prepare an Individual Evaluation Report IER on that proposal www. avramov. org avramov@avramov. org 3

How a proposal is evaluated Stage 2. Consensus Group n The three/five experts who read the proposal meet together to come to a consensus view n The group prepares a Consensus Report CR www. avramov. org avramov@avramov. org 4

How a proposal is evaluated Stage 3. Panel meeting n n 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 5

Who are the evaluators? n n Must be registered in the database of experts for research activities FP 7 EMM https: //cordis. europa. eu/emmfp 7/ Selected from the database on the basis of the high level of expertise relevant to a specific call www. avramov. org avramov@avramov. org 6

What is expected from evaluators? n n n 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 judgement to each proposal Evaluate on 4 criteria (and use sub-criteria as issues to be considered in the assessment) www. avramov. org avramov@avramov. org 7

Responsibilities of evaluators Evaluators are: n Independent : they do not represent their employer, nor their country n Objective : evaluate the proposal as written n Accurate : use the official evaluation criteria only n Consistent : apply the same standard of judgment to each proposal n Incommunicado : external contacts on evaluation are not permitted during or after the evaluation www. avramov. org avramov@avramov. org 8

What does this mean for applicants? n n 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 description when drafting your proposal (see Annex 2 Guide for Applicants) www. avramov. org avramov@avramov. org 9

Evaluation criteria n n S&T Quality Training Implementation Impact www. avramov. org Threshold = 3 Threshold = 4 Threshold =3 avramov@avramov. org 10

Evaluation sub-criteria n n The sub-criteria are issues that the experts should consider in the assessment of the relevant criterion Failure to meet any of the subcriteria is reflected in the overall criterion mark www. avramov. org avramov@avramov. org 11