Funder’s perspective - evaluation

1. Funder’s perspective - evaluation Conny Wang Hansen Support Office Science (SOS)

2. Funder’s perspective • Understand the purpose of providing funding under the actual instrument/call • What are the success criteria for the grant provider? • Who are involved in evaluating your application - The Secretariat • - external Evaluators (subject-specific experts) - Board or Council members • Who decides whether the applicant receives a grant or rejection (Grant Authority)?

3. Funder’s perspectivethe Private Foundation The Grant Authority is most often persons, who: • are or have worked at senior level in the public or private sector. With great insight into the general scientific and societal conditions • want to support meaningful and highly qualified projects matching the purpose of the foundation • have the greatest possible impact (for the largest number of people) • reflects a positive return on the fund itself

4. General application requirements Crucial for a good application is clear and understandablecommunication also non-subject specific experts may evaluate your application, and need to be able to see clearly, why YOURapplication should result in a grant

5. General requirements Understand what target group the call is directed toward • How well do you as applicant fit into that target group? • How well does your research subject fit the target of the call? • Read carefully the ENTIREcall text - understand the process and criteria, your application will be assessed by.

6. General requirements • The application must be received at application deadline • Must fit well to the specific instrument/research subject described in the call • ALL formal requirements for the use of application forms/ templates/language must be respected • Submission requirements (via e-grant or mail?) • Requirements for maxnumber of lines/pages must be respected

7. Assessment criteria Scientific quality: • Does the project contribute to scientific progress, innovation, and originality (theoretically, methodologically and empirically)? • Contribution to internationalization of DK research? • Is there a clear and well defined problem description and goal. Applicants’ qualifications: Your CV shall match the project proposed. Argue for how you/the group have the necessary expertise and the relevant experience

8. Feasibility: • Is there a realistic work schedule and timetable for the project? • Does the project description account for project milestones and success criteria, and are they realistic? • Are the proposed activities commensurate with the budget? Publication and dissemination of results: Plan for deliverables (type/when) Other: • Will the activities benefit Danish research? • Is research education, improvement of mobility researchers (nat./int.) involved. And if relevant – between research institutions and business partners

9. Questions to be asked Is it a good idea? • Explain why • Increases knowledge • Holds a potential to develop “state of the art” Is it original (enough?) • Originality can have many aspects – e.g. Idea / Method / Theory / Application / Context etc. • Potential for scientific progress must be evident – make sure to explain and argue for it explicitly. Do not expect it to be obvious.

10. Questions to be asked Is it (likely) possible to do – and do you know how you want to do it? • Research question must be clear • Theory / Method should be clearly described • Work plan incl. milestones shall correspond to the proposed activities and easily accessible • Success criteria shall be argued and identifiable

11. Questions to be asked Can you do it? (with some help?) • Your CV shall match the project proposed • You / the group have the necessary expertise – remember to argue for how expertise is available • You / the group have the relevant experience – argue for it ! Have you prepared a realistic budget?

12. Putting together the proposalA standard generic proposal layout • Hypothesis, objective: Be clear and concise. • Background:State-of-the-art, define missing knowledge. How does you project fit in the bigger picture? Why is it important? • Plan of work, methods, organization:Consequent and motivated. • Budget:Specify and justify all costs; relate to project plan. • Merits:CV; conditions (who does what, equipment, etc.) • Summary:Comes first in the proposal, but must be written last! Must be independent from rest of proposal. Do not ignore the popular summary! • Include… • preliminary results • motivation: Your project’s significance for this funding org.

13. What does the proposal’s parts do?Introduction/summary Should ideally be one half page long. The only part that should be includedeven if the proposal guidelines do not require it, and regardless of the heading of the first section. Purpose: Should summarize the entire project in a few sentences and actively catch the attention and interest of the reader. Begin with a brief and concise statement of what the entire project is expected to do and/or achieve. Common mistakes: • Begins with a background or motivation; • States what the applicant wishes to study, not what he/she intends to do or achieve; • Fails to motivate the relevance to the funder.

14. A few words aboutObjective and goal Your project’s goalis the purpose towards which the project is directed; its long-term effect or outcome. A goal may not be strictly measurable or tangible. Your goal must be aligned with that of your funder; this is often a fundamental evaluation criterion. The objectiveis the concrete result that the project is expected to deliver to attain the goal. It must be measurable and tangible; it can also be described as your project’s deliverable/-s. It is absolutely fundamental to be clear about this difference! Common mistakes: • Methods or study objects are described as objectives; • Goals and objectives are mixed up or described as the same thing; • Only the goal is described, not the objective.

15. What does the proposal’s parts do?Background Purpose: Demonstrate that the applicant is familiar with his/her field of expertise in question, particularly the current state-of-the-art; demonstrate familiarity with current issues in national and international literature; and – very important – identify the knowledge gaps. Crucial part of the problem formulation for the project/proposal. Common mistakes: • Background is too long, too basic, and/or too tedious (one of the most common errors in proposals!); • too specialized for the audience; • lacks or have inadequate references; • poorly structured, lacks narrative thread.

16. What does the proposal’s parts do?Project plan, Material and Methods, Feasibility Purpose: To convince that the project is realistically feasible, by providing information about access to, and experience with, equipment and methods; provide a feasible implementation plan/schedule; if motivated, describe a solid project organization. Common mistakes: • Imbalance in method description – too little/too much detail; • Over-optimistic or unrealistic goals; • No project/time/implementation plan; • Plan B is missing; no contingency plan for a possible or likely outcome of part of project.

17. What does the proposal’s parts do?CV and List of Publications Purpose: To demonstrate that the applicant is capable, and has the adequate background, to perform the proposed research. Common mistakes: • Too much information is provided (only information pertinent to the applicant’s career should be included; do not list every talk at the local elementary school or that you are coaching a 7th division soccer club); • Too little information is provided (why is there an unaccounted for gap of 3 years in the applicant’s CV; prison term, mental asylum, worked for Al-Qaeda...?); • Poorly organized.

18. A good, clean academic CV for a grant proposal: However, important that the CV is adjusted to clearly show the reviewers that you are within the core target group of the specific call. • No unnecessary decoration; • Simple, clear typography and layout; • Positions and data presented in reverse chronologic order

19. Different ways to write • Chronological CV • Hybrid CV • Skills-based CV • Scientific achievement-based CV Read more http://blogs.nature.com

20. A chronological CV • Work – present • 09/2010 – present University of Southern Denmark, Faculty of Science • Employment history • 13/2008 – 08/2010 – Harvard School of Public Health • 10/2004 – 12/2008 – University of Lund, Sweden • Education • 2008 PhD. In Microbiology, Aarhus University, Denmark • 2005 M.Sc. In Microbiology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark • 2002 B.Sc. In Microbiology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark • Grants and Funding • 2008 Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship Postdoc gran • 2005 Carlsberg Foundation Equipment • 2003 Oticon Foundation Travel Grant • Teaching experience • 2013 Guest lecturer Department of Microbiology, University of Lund • 2010–2012 Supervision M.Sc. Hans Hansen, Copenhagen University

21. Skill based CV • Education • 2008 Harvard PhD • 2005 M.Sc. Copenhagen University • 2003 B.Sc. University of Southern Denmark • Professional preparation • Identifying regulatory mechanisms in E.coli using mass spectrometry • University of Southern Denmark, 2010-present, I am working with microbiology at the department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. I have developed a regulatory mechanism in gene regulation by antisense RNA in the bacterium E. coli. The discovery may have implications for the treatment of cancer and infectious hepatitis. • Working with purifying regulatory proteins in E.coli • University of Lund, Sweden, Postdoc in Stephen Aitkens group 2008-2010. I was working with regulatory mechanism in E.coli. My work resulted in 2 previewed articles. • Molecular Biology of the Cell • PhD student at University of Harvard, 2005-2010. At Harvard University I was working in the highly respected group named Biology of the Cell. My work resulted in 3 papers all peer-reviewed. • Grants and Funding • I received in 2008 a Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship. The application was named “Investigation new regulatory mechanism in E.coli.” • Leadership experience • I supervised Hans Hansen while he was doing his M.Sc. at University of Copenhagen.

22. A scientific achievement-based CV • Education • 2008 Harvard PhD • 2005 M.Sc. Copenhagen University • 2003 B.Sc. University of Southern Denmark • Professional preparation • I have Identified new regulatory mechanisms that may have implications for treatment of cancer • University of Southern Denmark, 2010-present, I am working with microbiology at the department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. I have developed a regulatory mechanism in gene regulation by antisense RNA in the bacterium E. coli. The discovery may have implications for the treatment of cancer and infectious hepatitis. • I have developed new methods to purify regulatory proteins from E.coli • University of Lund, Sweden, 2008-2010, I was working with regulatory mechanism in E.coli. • I have been working in the highly respected group at Harvard University. • PhD student at University of Harvard, 2005-2010. At Harvard University I was working in the highly respected group named Biology of the Cell. My work resulted in 3 papers all peer-reviewed. • Grants and Funding • I received in 2008 a Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship. The application was named “Investigation new regulatory mechanism in E.coli.” • Leadership experience • I supervised Hans Hansen while he was doing his M.Sc. at University of Copenhagen.

23. What does the proposal’s parts do?Budget Purpose: To provide the funder with a specified, justified, and realistic basis to guide the determination of the size of the grant. Provide budget justification/specification Common mistakes: • Unclear or no clear connection between budget items and proposed research; • Unrealistic amounts; • Unallowablecosts included; • No adjustment for annual cost increases; • Overheadguidelines or rules not followed.

24. Keep in mind when preparing application budgets • Prepare a realistic budget – do not inflate it, as it will most likely make you look ignorant and harm your application • Necessary resources shall be available – be sure to demonstrate it • Avoid asking for expenses that are already provided through OH • Remember to make an agreement with your Dept. head how SDU’s 5% rule can be financed for applications to foundations, where OH is NOT an eligible cost.