HORIZON Tips for writing good Reports

Transcription

1 HORIZON 2020 Tips for writing good Reports

2 Content Tips for Reports Do's Don'ts Good and Bad eamples Linguistic Suggestions Checklist

3 Tips for Reports Reports should provide clear feedback on the proposal using terms that are in the scoring table, as not leave doubt for the reader For each sub-criterion: 1. Provide an overall assessment for elements with an eplanation. Think: ecellent, very good, good, fair, poor, fail. 2. Eplain positive points (if any) 3. Consider negative points (if any) and qualify each negative point to show its significance. Think: minor shortcoming, shortcoming (might reduce score), significant weakness, serious inherent weakness. Consistency between comments and scores needs to be ensured The proposal fails to properly address the issues and criteria listed in the call topic. Score given: 2.5. Epected: 0. The development of X has enormous potential for impact and eploitation. The epected impact of XX and XXX tools will have a great contribution to the final goal of improving Y related conditions. The training component for more junior researchers is an ecellent initiative of the proposal. Score given: 3.5. Epected: 4,5-5.

4 DO's Comments should contain assessments, be substantial and of adequate length and related to the criterion being evaluated Use clear language, that can be easily understood by applicants and fellow eperts Ensure each argument is put under the right criterion Be precise and knowledgeable. Include words like "Because", "Specifically", "For eample" Be factual. This proposal is... not I think that...

5 DON'Ts Don't be vague nor provide unsupported opinions "The resources for the project are unrealistic" - too high or too low? Poor comments include words like: "Perhaps", "Think", "Seems", "Assume", "Probably" Avoid categorical or short and superficial comments Be aware of the danger of 'dominating negatives' don t forget to mention the good points as well! Don t penalise a proposal twice for the same negative point. A basic underlying fault in a proposal can impact more than one criterion but make clear these are different and distinct problems Don't copy and paste statements from the proposal tet No recommendations. Negative points should be reflected as shortcomings or weaknesses

6 Good Eamples The proposal lacks a clear identification of the state-of-the-art, key technologies and design approaches. It does not sufficiently consider research in language learning and formal theories of knowledge. The S&T approach is unlikely to enable the project to achieve its objectives. The required foundational research is not well addressed. There are numerous statements which are not grounded on relevant research results. The proposal does not consider the use of standards nor does it contribute to their development. The proposal does not sufficiently justify how the over-concentration of the effort in one country or region would allow the achievement of the epected level of impacts. This proposal fails to advance the state of the art in X or Y, or it does not take Z into account. The proposal might increase competitiveness and growth of other companies, but this element is not clearly described in the proposal.

7 Good Eamples The consortium management plan is inadequate; it does not include an overall responsibility for demonstration activities; it omits a problem-solving mechanism in the event of disputes between partners. The proposal does not sufficiently eplain how the estimated resources in the main research work packages would allow for the implementation of the proposed work. Work package 4 is not relevant to the goals of the project because it fails to address issue A and instead dedicates the majority of its effort to B. The proposal does not adequately discuss how the lack of sufficient participation from end users in the proposed work would allow for a successful implementation of the proposed work. The co-ordinator does not demonstrate in this proposal an adequate level of eperience of work in the field.

8 Bad Eamples Not factual or naïve statements: However, it was noted that participation focuses on southern countries, mainly Spain and Italy, with limited participation from the more northern countries. Concerns are epressed regarding the possibility to achieve the objectives of the project in three years. and the duration of the project was 4 years The proposal provides a clear statement of activities divided among three objectives. and there were 8 objectives There is a good representation from both industry and SMEs, even though many of the latter seem to be small and linked to the academic institutions. The overall budget is distributed quite asymmetrically; the coordinating institution is taking close to one third of the entire funding requested.

9 Linguistic Suggestions Why say Poor when you can say: Insufficient, fails to describe, inadequate, very generic, not evident, unfocused, inappropriate, limited, not sound enough, not specified, no significant impact, unjustified, overestimated Why say Ecellent when you can say: Etremely relevant, credible, very clear, precisely specified, realistic, very innovative, etremely well suited, very good, timely, convincing, comprehensive, high quality, justified, very well identified, strong, highly effective, thoughtful, very promising, evidence, well-formulated, carefullyprepared, fully in line, sound, very convincingly integrated, clearly articulated, coherent, well balanced, very plausible

10 Checklist Have you fully eplained this proposal s strengths and weaknesses for all evaluation criteria? Do comments match scores? (high scores = positive comments, low scores = negative comments) Would you give the same score based on the comments you read? Have you written at adequate length? Have you addressed all aspects of each criterion? Have you checked any matters-of-fact which you have quoted?

11 Poor comments and reports provide an opening for an evaluation review complaint Good comments and reports are fair to applicants and close the issue