European Peer Review Guide - European Science Foundation

1. Excellence Projects selected for funding must demonstrate high quality in the context of the topics
and criteria set out in the calls. The excellence of the proposals should be based on
an assessment performed by experts. These experts, panel members and expert peer
reviewers should be selected according to clear criteria and operate on procedures that
avoid bias and manage conflicts of interest.
2. Impartiality All proposals submitted must be treated equally. They should be evaluated on their
merits, irrespective of their origin or the identity of the applicants.
3. Transparency Decisions must be based on clearly described rules and procedures that are published
a priori. All applicants must receive adequate feedback on the outcome of the evaluation
of their proposal. All applicants should have the right to reply to the conclusions of the
review. Adequate procedures should be in place to deal with the right to reply.
4. Appropriateness
for purpose
The evaluation process should be appropriate to the nature of the call, the research area
addressed, and in proportion with the investment and complexity of the work.
5. Efficiency
and speed
The end-to-end evaluation process must be as rapid as possible, commensurate with
maintaining the quality of the evaluation, and respecting the legal framework. The
process needs to be efficient and simple.
6. Confidentiality All proposals and related data, intellectual property and other documents must be
treated in confidence by reviewers and organisations involved in the process. There
should be arrangements for the disclosure of the identity of the experts.
7. Ethical and integrity
considerations
Table 2. Set of core principles of peer review
Any proposal which contravenes fundamental ethical or integrity principles may be
excluded at any time of the peer review process.
13
European Peer Review Guide
3.2 Integrity of the process
of peer review
All research institutions (research funding and
performing organisations as well as academies
and universities) have the role and the obligation
to promote relevant research and good research
practice and to ensure the integrity of their conduct
13.
Fundamental principles of good research practice
and peer review are indispensable for research
integrity 14,15. Funding organisations and reviewers
should not discriminate in any way on the basis
of gender, age, ethnic, national or social origin,
religion or belief, sexual orientation, language,
disability, political opinion, social or economic
condition.
13. See European Commission (2005), The European Charter for
Researchers.
14. See European Science Foundation (2010a), Fostering Research
Integrity in Europe, pp. 8-9.
15. See European Commission (2005), The European Charter for
Researchers, p. 11.
Integrity of the peer review process should be
ensured through appropriate resources, policies
and practices, management interventions, as well
as training and monitoring, such that in essence
we can “say what we do and do what we say we
do”. To this end, upholding the advertised set of
core principles is a cornerstone of the integrity of
the process. Different organisations have various
means of assuring integrity of their practices; however,
there are common basic principles that must
be incorporated. Flexibility and pragmatic interpretations
may be exercised only with extreme care
and according to the context and without ignoring
the core meaning of these principles or violating
their spirit. Furthermore, the flexibility exercised
in the sphere of one principle should not violate or
come into conflict with other principles.
To safeguard integrity it is absolutely essential
to avoid discretionary decisions and changes.
Effective and transparent communication is a
crucial element in safeguarding the integrity of
any multi-stakeholder system such as peer review.
Therefore, guidelines on integrity must be formulated
and promoted to help all parties implicated