European Peer Review Guide - European Science Foundation

only six organisations have indicated that they have
programmes for the Creation or Enhancement of
Scientific Networks 82 .
the survey have indicated that they have preliminary
selection, with one using outline proposals and the
other based on full proposals.
(iii) Responsive (continuous calls) versus
non-responsive (time-bound calls)
Because of their nature, it is usually preferable to
consider the non-responsive mode for managing
networking programmes, particularly for multinational
programmes, since they require specific
preparatory steps that need careful attention (e.g.,
programmatic agreements, guidelines, dissemination
needs, themes or domains of research, etc.).
With regard to the language regime, it is common
for proposals to be written in English. This is an
important factor when proposals are submitted by
multinational teams, and/or when the peer review
will be carried out by international panels of experts.
However, other national languages may be acceptable
in the case of national network programmes,
or multilateral collaborations involving a shared
common language.
The results of the survey show that for programmes for
the Creation or Enhancement of Scientific Networks,
from the six respondents, one has indicated a
continuous call and four with calls at regular intervals,
of 6 months (for 1/4 respondents) and 12 months (for
3/4).
7.2 Recommended peer review
approaches specific to Scientific
Network proposals
In this section some of the specific features will
be highlighted. Although there seems to be some
degree of variability in the processes and the way
these are applied across different scientific domains,
the procedures suggested below are meant to apply
across various domains.
According to the survey, for the Creation or
Enhancement of Scientific Networks, all six
respondents have indicated that their procedures are
the same across all disciplines.
7.2.1 Proposal submission
Calls may be organised on the basis of one- or twostage
submissions. A two-stage process may be most
appropriate when a high volume of proposals is
expected (and a relatively low success rate).
Other factors to be considered are the increased
total time to a final grant, and the greater administrative
effort required of the funding body. It is
generally found that a single submission stage may
be sufficient.
For programmes for the Creation or Enhancement
of Scientific Networks two of the six respondents of
82. See European Science Foundation (2010b), ESF Survey Analysis
Report on Peer Review Practices, in particular Section 4.1, Table 4.1.
For the Creation or Enhancement of Scientific Networks
programmes, three out of six organisations responded
that English is used as the language of their calls and
two organisations (33%) stated that they use their own
country’s official language(s).
As described in Part I of this Guide (Chapter 4) it
is recommended good practice to provide detailed
guidelines for applicants, describing the submission
process, the rules of the game and explaining the
subsequent steps in the selection process.
7.2.2 Peer Review stages
A two-stage evaluation process, which includes
individual/remote reviewers (at least three) and a
panel assessment, is usually is the most appropriate.
However, for Scientific Network Programmes a single
stage may be sufficient.
Some variants can occur in the number and
the typology of the reviewers as individual/remote
(external) versus members of the review panel
according to the type of proposals.
For programmes for the Creation or Enhancement
of Scientific Networks two out of the six survey
respondents reported using a two-stage selection
process: one utilises fully disjointed individual/
remote reviewers and panel members, the other one
sometimes allowing some overlap between the two sets.
• Individual/Remote Reviewers
– Conventional proposals: the number can typically
vary between three and four;
– Interdisciplinary proposals: can require a higher
number of individual/remote reviewers;
– Breakthrough proposals: reviewers should be
able to flag the transformative character of the
proposed research;
– Confidentiality: similar to the Collaborative
Research programmes discussed in the previ-
63
European Peer Review Guide