European Peer Review Guide - European Science Foundation

Appendix 1. Glossary
Ad hoc (scientific) committee
Committee set up for a limited duration (typically less than
one or two years) and for a particular purpose.
Administrative staff
Staff members who are mainly responsible for supporting the
scientific staff and dealing with routine tasks.
Eligibility criteria
The minimum conditions which a proposal must fulfil if it is
to be retained for further evaluation.
Evaluation criteria
The criteria against which eligible proposals are assessed by
independent experts.
Expert
An individual who is qualified to evaluate a research
proposal, by virtue of his or her scientific background, and/
or by knowledge of broader aspects relevant to the evaluation
process.
Funding instrument
An activity with the aim of distributing funding based on
explicit requirements. These requirements are typically
related to scientific focus, eligibility, competitive
selection, etc. A funding organisation will normally make use
of a number of instruments to meet its needs.
Grants
Funding awarded through competitive merit-based selection:
competitive selection of proposals on the basis of the quality
of the applicant(s) and/or the quality of the proposed research
activity and/or the quality of the research environment.
Incentives
Distribution of monetary or other forms of rewards meant to
motivate and encourage participation in peer review.
Individual/remote review
The evaluation of a proposal by one or more experts who
do not discuss their views with other experts. In some
organisations these are also referred to as ‘external reviewers’.
Letter of intent
Short document containing a brief scientific summary and
a list of participating scientists and/or institutions, stating
the interest to apply for funding. This is the first step in
expressing interest and is normally followed by a more
detailed proposal.
Panel review
The collective evaluation of a number of proposals by a group
of experts, involving a discussion or other interaction before
arriving at a conclusion.
Peer review
The process of evaluating research applications (proposals) by
experts in the field of the proposed research.
Preliminary or outline proposal
Research proposal containing an overview of the scientific
scope of the project, the requested budget, project plan and
the scientist(s) involved.
Redress
Formal opportunity offered to the applicants of proposals
under peer review to clarify correction of procedural mistakes
and/or legal issues, after the final decision.
Scientific staff
Staff members who are mainly responsible for tasks needing
scientific experience, background or judgment, for example,
on selection of reviewers, writing of review minutes, reports,
analysis, etc.
Standing (scientific) committee
Committee set up with a mandate for a relatively longer
duration (typically several years) and for one or multiple
purposes.
79
European Peer Review Guide