European Peer Review Guide - European Science Foundation

64
European Peer Review Guide
ous chapter, and using the results of the survey,
it is recommended to keep the identity of the
reviewers confidential as much as possible. In
some European countries, due to constitutional
requirements on openness of the peer review
process, this may not be possible.
• Review Panel
– Interdisciplinary proposals: the composition
of the panel should comprise a core group of
experts representing a wide range of disciplines
to ensure the necessary disciplinary expertise in
any given competition, including where possible
individuals who themselves have an interdisciplinary
outlook;
– Proposals per reviewer.
• Reader system
According to the survey, none of the six respondents
for Creation or Enhancement of Scientific Networks
programmes have indicated the usage of reader system.
• Right to reply:
The inclusion of right to reply when applied as part
of the peer review process will add to the robustness
and quality of the selection process and may
be considered whenever feasible. Although, for
programmes for the Creation and Enhancement
of Scientific Networks, none of the six respondents
have indicated its use.
7.2.3 Conflicts of Interest
Networking proposals often bring together large
sections of the available scientific community in
a particular field, and so can present particular
difficulties when it comes to avoiding conflicts of
interest. If the proposal language and thematic
content so permit, it is strongly encouraged to use
international reviewers and panels of experts including
experts from emerging countries.
According to survey results, in response to the
question “How is a possible bias/conflict of interest
identified on the side of the reviewers in this
Instrument?” the following responses are provided
for programmes for the Creation or Enhancement of
Scientific Networks (see table below)
7.2.4 Timeline
Since Networking programmes normally do not
contain funding for research, funding agencies are
encouraged to streamline their procedures as far as
possible to minimise the time to grant.
For programmes for the Creation or Enhancement
of Scientific Networks, the consensus of the six
respondents indicates that their process takes about
10 months with the following breakdown:
• Duration of the call: 1-5 months for 3/6 organisations.
• From proposal submission deadline to funding
decision: 1-5 months for 3/6 respondents.
7.3 Processing of applications
7.3.1 Eligibility criteria
Beside the recommended standard criteria (see
§4.3.1 in Part I of this Guide), some additional criteria
should be considered for networking proposals:
• It is good practice to indicate what is expected to
be an optimum range for the number of partners,
while still allowing proposals falling outside of
this range, duly justified;
• in order to maximise viability and in light of the
fact that these grants normally do not include
funding of research, it may be considered to
include criteria that would ascertain the existence
of current and relevant research funding at the
disposal of the participants.
Generally it is recommended that in the case of
calls requiring interdisciplinary and breakthrough
research, the eligibility screening is carried out by
experienced and dedicated administrative staff or
Programmes for the Creation or Enhancement
of Scientific Networks
Checked by the members of staff in the organisation. If
there are conflicts, the potential reviewer is excluded
Reviewers are asked to check for potential conflicts
themselves and possibly withdraw from the assessment
Reviewers have to sign a statement confirming that there
are no conflicts of interest
Individual/
Remote reviewers
100.0%
3/3
66.7%
2/3
66.7%
2/3
Panel reviewers
100.0%
3/3
100.0%
3/3
100.0%
3/3