1 / 11

Marie Curie Initial Training Networks (ITN)

Marie Curie Initial Training Networks (ITN). Building knowledge about evaluation process and criteria into own proposal Dr Dragana Avramov, PSPC avramov@avramov.org Brussels 6 November 2009. Full Proposal. Proposal forms. Evaluation Process. Submission. Individual reading. Consensus.

avery
Download Presentation

Marie Curie Initial Training Networks (ITN)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Marie Curie Initial Training Networks (ITN) Building knowledge about evaluation process and criteria into own proposal Dr Dragana Avramov, PSPC avramov@avramov.org Brussels 6 November 2009 avramov@avramov.org

  2. Full Proposal Proposal forms Evaluation Process Submission Individual reading Consensus Panel Finalisation Evaluators Evaluators Evaluators Rejection list Criteria Criteria Criteria Proposals in suggested priority order Eligibility COMMISSION COMMISSION EVALUATORS avramov@avramov.org

  3. How a proposal is evaluated Stage 1. Individual readings • Each proposal is read independently by three to five experts • The experts each prepare an Individual Evaluation Report IER on that proposal avramov@avramov.org

  4. How a proposal is evaluated Stage 2. Consensus Group • The three/five experts who read the proposal meet together to come to a consensus view • The group prepares a Consensus Report CR avramov@avramov.org

  5. How a proposal is evaluated Stage 3. Panel meeting • All the experts within the area meet together as a panel to review ranked list • In case of ex aequo priority criteria are applied avramov@avramov.org

  6. Who are the evaluators? • Must be registered in the database of experts for research activities FP7 EMM https://cordis.europa.eu/emmfp7/ • Selected from the database on the basis of the high level of expertise relevant to a specific call avramov@avramov.org

  7. What is expected from evaluators? • Give a fair and clear opinion on each proposal • Evaluate proposals against the Objectives and impact defined in the Workprogram • Evaluate proposal as written. Make no additional assumptions, do not read between the lines • Consistently apply the same standard of judgement to each proposal • Evaluate on 4 criteria (and use sub-criteria as issues to be considered in the assessment) avramov@avramov.org

  8. Responsibilities of evaluators Evaluators are: • Independent : they do not represent their employer, nor their country • Objective :evaluate the proposal as written • Accurate : use the official evaluation criteria only • Consistent : apply the same standard of judgment to each proposal • Incommunicado : external contacts on evaluation are not permitted during or after the evaluation avramov@avramov.org

  9. What does this mean for applicants? • Reassurance that the evaluation process is of high quality, guided by principles of transparency, equality of treatment, fairness and transparency • Never loose out of sight Evaluation criteria description when drafting your proposal (see Annex 2 Guide for Applicants) avramov@avramov.org

  10. Evaluation criteria • S&T Quality Threshold = 3 • Training Threshold = 4 • Implementation Threshold =3 • Impact avramov@avramov.org

  11. Evaluation sub-criteria • The sub-criteria are issues that the experts should consider in the assessment of the relevant criterion • Failure to meet any of the sub-criteria is reflected in the overall criterion mark avramov@avramov.org

More Related