130 likes | 251 Views
Exploratory Workshop Advisory Group meeting Bath, UK, 21 October 2009. Chair : Roderick Floud Participants: Arsen Bačić Pieter Hooimeijer Rainer Kattel (written comments) Sabine Krolak-Schwerdt Algis Krupavicius Slavko Splichal John Yfantopoulos Office support: Balázs Kiss
E N D
Exploratory Workshop Advisory Group meetingBath, UK, 21 October 2009 Chair: Roderick Floud Participants: Arsen Bačić Pieter Hooimeijer Rainer Kattel (written comments) Sabine Krolak-Schwerdt AlgisKrupavicius SlavkoSplichal John Yfantopoulos Office support: Balázs Kiss Rhona Heywood-Roos
2009 Call • 261 (eligible) proposals were received for all ESF scientific units • 115 were relevant to the SCSS. • The pre-filtering group selected 64 for further evaluation (89 with addition of trans-committee proposals) which were assessed by external referees
Advisory Group Work • Eachmemberwasallocated 12-15 proposals • The group focused on the highestrankedproposals, according to referee grades and withrankingfromadvisory group members • The proposalswith the top rating of 5 were split into the « top 10 » mostdeserving and 6 verydeserving • A further 15 proposalswith the grade of 4 wereranked
Top Ten - unconditional 5/10 trans-committeeproposals
The 6 « verydeserving » 2/6 trans-committeeproposals
15 – ranked in order of preference– continued… 8/15 trans-committeeproposals
The nextsteps • The SCSS isasked to endorse the recommendedlist • At the ESF the workshops are allocatedaccording to • Availablefunding • Committeepriorities • The more trans-committeeproposals are awarded, the more workshops on the recommendedlist
Revised procedure for the assessmentof ESF Exploratory Workshops proposals ** Questionnaire to ESF Standing Committees ** 1. Did your committee fully adopt the new process of selecting EWs using a pre-filtering step, as described in the document circulated at the April Core Group/SC meeting ? a) Yes, we fully adopted the suggested new process 2. Please select as appropriate For pre-filtering: b) We used Core Group members as well as other members of the Committee to conduct the pre-filtering For assessment: d) We used a mix of external referees and Core Group/Committee members For ranking: a) Some of the referees who assessed the proposals were also part of the ranking group
Questionnairecontinued… 3. Do you think the pre-filtering step increased the effectiveness of the selection process for identifying the top EW proposals The Advisory Group would like to see the impact of the 25 trans-committee proposals before responding 4. Do you think the pre-filtering step reduced the overall peer review burden in your committee Somewhat reduced 5. Do you think the pre-filtering step should be permanently adopted? Definitely Yes
Questionnaire continued… 6. General Conclusion/Comments by Standing Committee on new procedure: Continue with process but put greater emphasis on pre-filtering step. The pre-filtering step is useful in weeding out poor proposals thus reducing the burden on referees.