European Peer Review Guide - European Science Foundation

4.7.1
Briefing
† †
4.7.2
Evaluation
criteria
4.7.3
Scoring
†
Right
4.7.4
to reply
Figure 8. Expert assessments
28
European Peer Review Guide
promotional material and in the call for proposals.
These criteria must be sharp, clear and concise. They
should be formulated such that the key aspects of
the proposals can be measured in relation to the
main scope and objectives of the programme. The
assessment criteria should not attempt to be exhaustive
and include criteria that will not be strongly
relevant and determining in the decision making
process for the given instrument.
The criteria must be clearly drafted and easily
applicable. All attempts must be made to minimise
room for diverging interpretations of the criteria
and for ambiguity. Evaluation criteria in the most
general sense may be grouped into four categories as
described below. It should be noted that, depending
on the funding instrument and the variants under
consideration, different combinations of these main
groups of criteria may be applicable33.
I. Relevance and expected impacts (driven by
programme policy, strategy, mandates, etc.)
• Relevance of the proposed work to the scope of
the call;
• Broader impact (scientific, knowledge creation,
socio-economic, etc.);
• Incremental versus transformative gains;
• Associated risks;
• Requested resources:
– budget: although it may be inevitable for some
organisations to actually scrutinise the overall
amounts requested by the proposers, it is more
appropriate to avoid this and instead to assess
the appropriateness of the cost items mentioned
below that can be used as a measure of confirming
the requested budget,
– staff effort,
– access to infrastructure,
– equipment and consumables,
33. Part II of this Guide will provide more detail on criteria
for each instrument.
– travel,
– networking and dissemination;
• Ethical issues: compliance with standard norms
and ethical practices when dealing with safety
and security, use of animals and human subjects,
environment, embargos and sanctions;
• Gender balance: some organisations pay specific
attention to promote gender balance within their
national programmes.
II. Scientific quality
• Scientific/intellectual merits of the proposed
research: clear, convincing and compelling;
• Thoroughness: definition of the problem and proposed
solutions, review of state of the art;
• Novelty and originality:
– unconventional,
– potential for the creation of new knowledge,
exciting new ideas and approaches,
– use of novel technologies/methodologies,
– innovative application of existing methodologies/technologies
in new areas,
– potential for the creation of new fundamental
questions and new directions for research,
– feasibility: scientific, technological, access to
infrastructure, recruitment, project timeline,
management plan and deliverables, associated
risks,
– appropriateness of the research methods, infrastructures,
equipment and fieldwork.
III. Applicant
• Academic qualifications and achievements in relation
to their stage of career;
• Research experience and level of independence;
• Demonstrated expertise of the applicant(s) in
similar projects;
• Applicants’ scientific networks and ability to
successfully disseminate research findings, i.e.,
knowledge transfer activities;
• Appropriateness of the team of applicants in terms