MSCA-COFUND Evaluator s experience Fellowship panel ( )

Transcription

1 MSCA-COFUND Evaluator s experience Fellowship panel ( ) INGA DREVILLE CNIC

2 Evaluation process 1 st stage - remote Each proposal is assigned to 4 evaluators - Individual Evaluation Reports Draft Consensus Report remote flag points to discuss 2 nd stage - in Brussels Meetings: experts, Vice-Chairs Evaluation Report with final scores Ranking

3 Criterion 1: Excellence Present your program: research options, candidates can choose their host organisation and 1.) in fellowship panel the candidates have the freedom to draft their research project 2.) in doctoral panel at least to choose among different research projects Evaluation: clearly determine the stages of the selection process / thresholds / procedures for retaining candidates for subsequent stages of evaluation Selection committees: indicate criteria for selecting external reviewers; number of experts; the proportion of experts from the private sector / gender balance; handling of conflicts of interest; guide for reviewers; if using agencies give details Evaluation criteria: specify criteria and its weight for each stage of evaluation; project/cv balance in fellowship panel; evaluation criteria for interview (for example: ability to present project, impact, English, ability to take part in scientific discussion) Final selection is expected to follow ranking if not justify Indicate scoring system to be applied, for example: the same as EU evaluations (excellent/very good/good/fair/poor)

4 Criterion 1: Excellence Equal opportunities: gender issues (but not only), compatibility of research and family; career breaks, researchers displaced by political conflicts Training: supervision arrangements; career guidance support (who/when/how); career development plan Training: include complementary skills training (criterion1/2/3) Secondments: (1) fix general requirement, for example: all fellows must complete a secondment in the non-academic sector); (2) specify duration, for example: 2-6 months (3) include list of suggested secondment organisations, for example: Partner Organizations with letters of support; (4) don t narrow the options, for example: fellows are free to suggest additional international secondment provided they are relevant; provide list; (criterion 1/2/3) If options are narrowed by capacity of the institution provide convincing justification

5 Criterion 2: Impact Individual level: transferrable skills / career perspectives: links with industry, networking opportunities, employment options for example: project involves partners including multinational corporations creating annually around 3,000 vacancies National / regional level: personalise; identify and address bottlenecks identified in your region and explain how your project addresses the needs; explain how your program will create economic and societal added value / add dynamism and visibility of the region/country International level: wow your program promotes the Charter and Code and enhances training and mobility of researchers internationally Quantify and personalise

6 Criterion 2: Impact Communication of the results Specify type of media and targeted public Propose specific actions and events / foreseen timeline Divide events by categories, for example: scientific publications; social media; participation to conferences, trade fair Quantify, for example: specify the estimated number of persons reached in previous editions of events Avoid links to institutional websites Open Science Strategy and Open Access Policy

7 Criterion 3: Implementation Risks and contingencies plan: for example gender balance, conflicts in management structure, low quality of applications low, ethical issues, low performance of fellows, lack of exploitation and transfer of research results, host organisations leaving; specify probability and potential impact on the project Budget: justify and explain especially of salaries if kept at minimum Co-financing: make sure that you explain which institutions are involved in co-financing and that they provide Commitment Letters Social security benefits: maternity leave, insurance, support during secondments Commitment letters: check signatures, dates, content Work packages: for example half page each, use tables to summarize what was explained in criterion 1 and give concrete deadlines for accomplishments of tasks; specify deliverables for each WP, so it is possible to monitor progress of your project. Don't surprise with new information. Gantt chart: all action at glance: research aims, training courses, dissemination actions, secondments

8 Highlights Perfection: no copy/paste, consistent information (especially between criterion 1 and 3) Personalise and quantify the information Use graphs, charts Page count Balance between the sections / weight of criteria 50/30/20

9 Thank you

10 Participants having benefited from COFUND before Participant having benefited from COFUND before - provide evidence of quality of earlier grant Explain how the new proposal will help further alignment of practices with the principles set out by the EU for the human recourses development in R&D In practice: 1.) give evidence of success of your programme, for example how many fellows applied, monitoring and evaluation techniques during the project, future options of the fellows 2.) demonstrate the added value of the new programme, for example more budget to travel, higher salaries, more training courses, more secondment options or longer secondments, more exposure to private sector The information is expected to be found in criterion 2; in criterion 3 you may also mention/reference it as a proof of capacity to implement the programme.