ITN The expert point of view. Erik Goormaghtigh Research Director with the National Fund for Scientific Research / ULB

Transcription

1 ITN 2018 The expert point of view Erik Goormaghtigh Research Director with the National Fund for Scientific Research / ULB October 16,

2 Submission. Eligibility checked by REA For ITN, make sure you understand the various categories European Training Networks (ETN) has the largest share of the budget. It comprises 8 scientific panels: Chemistry (CHE), Social Sciences and Humanities (SOC), Economic Sciences (ECO), Information Science and Engineering (ENG), Environment and Geosciences (ENV), Life Sciences (LIF), Mathematics (MAT), Physics (PHY). European Industrial Doctorates (EID) and European Joint Doctorates (EJD ) In EID and EJD, fellowships offered to early-stage researchers should lead to a doctoral degree. EJD result in joint, double or multiple doctoral degrees awarded by institutions from at least two different countries. EIDs focus on the creation of Doctoral programmes under the mandatory involvement of the nonacademic sector, are ranked in a separate panel with a dedicated budget EJDs focuses on the creation of joint doctoral programmes leading to joint, double or multiple doctoral degrees. They are ranked in a separate panel with a dedicated budget Allocation to experts 2

3 The experts. Expert selection: anyone registered in the database from academic or private sector His/her keyword/publications,.. match the project keywords No COI 3

4 The evaluation procedure independent evaluations (remote) one consensus report Final quality check of the CRs by REA officers and Vice-Chairs in Brussels 4

5 (50%) (30%) (20%) 5

6 All is in the Guide for Applicants The real challenge is - to understand precisely (it takes time) - build a proposal that is perfect (it takes a lot of time) - be thorough (don t leave a single sub- criterion out) (it takes time) Experts are required to describe strengths and weaknesses for all subcriteria 6

7 IMPORTANT Very competitive, you must address thoroughly every single sub-criterion Very complex, you must understand (spend time understanding) the specificities of every single sub-criterion Must be detailed and realistic: the evaluators need to grasp how it will happen 7

8 Examples (non exhaustive..) A meaningful experience in a private company for every student (even for ETN!) When you describe a meeting, precise where and when it will take place, who is responsible, how are the students going to share their results, what are the courses, who is going to teach, what is the target, how will you assess the targets have been reached, etc.. 8

9 Dissemination of the results: publications of course (which ones..) but also databases, open access repositories, conferences (which ones, when,..), patents,.. Communication of the activities: beyond the scientific world, think about stakeholders, patient associations, schools,.. and use social media It must remain realistic 9

10 Risk management: not only scientific (though required) but also human, administrative, access to equipment/materials, etc.. 10

11 Examples (non exhaustive..) For every sub-criterion, experts are required to write a few sentences under Strengths. Weaknesses. 11

12 (50%) (30%) (20%) The intersectoral aspects are not fully developed. The role of the industrial partners is presented as a reservoir of scientific expertise and technology rather than as a source of entrepreneurial inspiration for the ESRs Contribution of the non-academic sector is limited giving its small size (2 ESRs) compared to the academic sector (13 ESRs). The industrial partners contribution to ESR training is not significant. None of the ESRs will be recruited by an industrial partner and only 4/10 ESRs will do secondments in industrial partner laboratories. The role of the industrial partners is minor compared to the role of the academic partners. WP3, WP4, WP6 do not involve participation of an industrial partner 12

13 (50%) (30%) (20%) Trainings mandatory for all ESR are not clearly identified. Even though it could be understood that network-wide activities will be attended by all ESRs, the project does not specify it clearly. Although it is described that all ESRs will undertake a placement in an industrial environment and will be involved in exploitation and commercialization activities, a business and patent teaching program is missing. The importance given to industry-related topics is not sufficiently developed with respect to the emphasis put on academic issues such as the Art of grant writing and others. Supervision on topics such as creating spin off, patenting, etc.. is too limited. 13

14 (50%) (30%) The number of network-wide meeting is large, possibly interfering with research and other training activities (20%) The project assigned to each ESR is very ambitious. The project fails to convince that achieving the program in the time frame of the project is feasible. Some risks are not properly considered. Dependencies between tasks could be problematic. For instance ESR4 will develop a mathematical tool based on the experimental results obtained by ESR2. The proposal does not sufficiently explain how to mitigate the risk created by a delay/failure at the experimental level. The research objectives presented are too generic and broad. The work plan is generic and does not sufficiently highlight the interactions between the ESRs projects and work packages. Little information is given about the procedure for ESRs' recruitment. ESRs will not adequately participate to the decision-making process. They are not represented in the SB. 14