European Peer Review Guide - European Science Foundation
European Peer Review Guide - European Science Foundation
European Peer Review Guide - European Science Foundation
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Eligibility<br />
criteria<br />
Completeness<br />
of the application<br />
General fit of the<br />
proposal with<br />
the Instrument’s<br />
purpose<br />
Timeliness<br />
of the<br />
submission<br />
Institutional,<br />
regional, national<br />
affiliation<br />
of applicants<br />
Other<br />
Total of 19<br />
Respondents<br />
94.7%<br />
18/19<br />
78.9%<br />
15/19<br />
78.9%<br />
15/19<br />
73.7%<br />
14/19<br />
36.8%<br />
7/19<br />
• Evaluation of the leadership and management<br />
aspects;<br />
• It is good practice to include some form of assessment<br />
of:<br />
– added value: why is a collaborative approach<br />
necessary?<br />
– integration: how well do the teams devoted to<br />
various components and work packages link<br />
together?<br />
– synergy: is the proposed work likely to yield<br />
benefits greater than the sum of the parts?<br />
• In the specific case of National Collaborative<br />
Research Programmes the strategic and national<br />
importance of the proposed research should also<br />
be evaluated. However, this may be a task for the<br />
funding body rather than expert evaluators.<br />
6.3.3 Referee assessments<br />
As noted in Part I of this <strong>Guide</strong> (Chapter 4) it is<br />
recommended as good practice to use standard<br />
assessment forms and online procedures.<br />
The survey shows that 88.2% (15/17) of the<br />
organisations use online standard assessment forms<br />
for the reviews of International Collaborative Research<br />
proposals made by individual/remote reviewers and<br />
73.3% (11/15) for those used by panel reviewers 81 .<br />
6.4 Final selection and funding<br />
decisions<br />
Final decisions are usually taken by a committee<br />
or board within or on behalf of the organisation in<br />
charge of the programme.<br />
It is very important to set clear ground rules<br />
on the procedure for making final decisions, particularly<br />
in the case of transnational programmes.<br />
Even when the national organisations maintain the<br />
responsibility for final funding decisions nationally,<br />
there should be a strong expectation that the<br />
ranking established by the expert evaluators will<br />
be respected.<br />
In the case of proposals having an equal rank, it<br />
may be legitimate for the funding body to differentiate<br />
proposals, where necessary, using previously<br />
agreed methods. Here, diversity issues (e.g., gender)<br />
might be taken into account.<br />
According to the survey results, for International<br />
Collaborative Research Programmes the following<br />
practices have been stated:<br />
International<br />
Collaborative<br />
Research<br />
Programmes<br />
61<br />
<strong>European</strong> <strong>Peer</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>Guide</strong><br />
Organisation’s own executive<br />
management decides on<br />
the basis of peer review<br />
recommendations<br />
A standing scientific committee<br />
composed of researchers<br />
decides on the basis of the peer<br />
review recommendations<br />
A board or committee<br />
composed of researchers,<br />
administrators and/or<br />
politicians decides on the<br />
basis of the peer review<br />
recommendations<br />
31.6%<br />
6/19<br />
31.6%<br />
6/19<br />
26.3%<br />
5/19<br />
81. See <strong>European</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>Foundation</strong> (2010b), ESF Survey<br />
Analysis Report on <strong>Peer</strong> <strong>Review</strong> Practices, in particular Section 4.9,<br />
Table 4.22.<br />
The review panel decides 10.5%<br />
2/19
Change language