1 / 16

Silvano Capitani LIFE SCIENCES Expert Evaluator

CRUI La ricerca per la qualità della vita: la priorità "salute" del 7° Programma Quadro Ferrara, 25 ottobre 2006, Aula Magna - Palazzo Bevilacqua Costabili Nona tappa del "Viaggio della Ricerca in Italia".

fala
Download Presentation

Silvano Capitani LIFE SCIENCES Expert Evaluator

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. CRUILa ricerca per la qualità della vita: la priorità "salute" del 7° Programma QuadroFerrara, 25 ottobre 2006, Aula Magna - Palazzo Bevilacqua Costabili Nona tappa del "Viaggio della Ricerca in Italia" Il processo di valutazione dei progetti europei: Marie Curie Actions Esperienze di un valutatore nel corso di FP 5 e FP 6 Silvano Capitani LIFE SCIENCES Expert Evaluator

  2. Ambito della valutazione Structuring the European Research Area Human Resources & Mobility Marie Curie Actions (FP 5 & FP 6) People (FP 7)

  3. Individual-driven actions Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships (IEF) Marie Curie Outgoing International Fellowships (OIF) Marie Curie Incoming International Fellowships (IIF)

  4. Marks Cannot be improvedHigh degree of agreement among evaluators Excellent 5 Some excellent points,Very good overall withrespect to the criteria 4.9 Very Good 4 4.0 Some very good pointsand some weaknesses. Goodoverall with respect to criteria 3.9 Good 3 3.0 2.9 Fair 2 Some notable weaknesses 2.0 Poor 1 1.9 Poorly presented, confusinginformation or poor technicalcontent 1.0 Fail or missing information 0

  5. 1. Scientific Qualityof Project • Scientific/ technological quality including any interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects of the proposal • Research Methodology • Originality and innovative nature of the project and relationship to ‘state of the art’ of research in the field • Timeliness and relevance of the project

  6. 2. Quality of theResearchers • Research experience • Research results including patents, publications, teaching etc. • Independent thinking and leadership qualities • Match between the fellow’s profile and project • Potential for reaching a position of professional maturity • Potential to acquire new knowledge

  7. 3. Quality of the Research Training Activities • Clarity and quality of the research training objectives for the researcher • Relevance and quality of additional scientific training offered, including acquisition of complementary skills

  8. 4. Quality of theHost • Scientific expertise in the field • Quality of the group/supervisors • Expertise in training researchers in the field and their capacity to provide mentoring/tutoring • International collaborations • Quality of infrastructure / facilities

  9. 5. Management andFeasibility • Practical arrangements for the implementation and management of the scientific project • Feasibility and credibility of the project including work plan • Practical and administrative arrangements and support for the hosting of the fellow

  10. 6. Added Value and relevance tothe objectives • Relevance of the proposal to one or more of the objectives of the action (as specified in the HRM Work Programme) • Potential of acquiring competencies during the fellowships to improve the prospects of reaching and/or reinforcing a position of professional maturity, diversity and independence, in particular through exposure to complementary skills training • Contribution to career development or reestablishment (where relevant) • Extent to which the research contributes to the objectives of the European Research Area or other European policy objectives

  11. Convergenza fra i processi della compilazione e della valutazione • Il richiedente segue precise regole di compilazione della domanda, che sono conosciute anche dal valutatore, definite nella Guide for Proposers • Il valutatore fa riferimento a criteri di giudizio predefiniti, che sono noti anche al richiedente, riportati nelle Guidelines for Proposal Evaluation • Il valutatore, pur conservando libertà assoluta di giudizio, è chiamato a seguire a sua volta regole precise e ad esprimere pareri su punti specifici che il compilatore conosce al momento della preparazione del progetto E’ opportuno che si crei convergenza fra i due percorsi (Compilazione e Valutazione) per raggiungere un giudizio favorevole

  12. La documentazione disponibile per preparare un progetto è molto ampia A. Info pack, including: • The Call Text • The Guide for Proposers • The Work Programme of the HRM activity B. In addition: • The Guidelines on proposal evaluation and project selection procedures • Guidance notes for evaluators

  13. Come aumentare la probabilità di successo • Seguire fedelmente le indicazioni delle linee guida • Oltre agli aspetti scientifici, fornire descrizione accurata del management e del valore aggiunto (Science versus other criteria) • Avvalersi del supporto di esperti (National Contact Points, Agenzie ad hoc, …..)

  14. Proposal Rejection Eligibility Individual Evaluation Consensus Ethical Issues Rejection Thresholds Ranking by Commission Negotiation negative Rejection Result positive Commission Funding Decision

More Related