1 / 14

Evaluators

How MSCA are evaluated? Natasa Markovska Research Center for Energy and Sustainable Development Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Evaluators. Independent experts -any natural persons registered in the evaluator database

rexsanders
Download Presentation

Evaluators

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. How MSCA are evaluated?NatasaMarkovskaResearch Center for Energy and Sustainable DevelopmentMacedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts

  2. Evaluators • Independent experts -any natural persons registered in the evaluator database • Selection: field of expertise, gender balance, fair representation of experts from all relevant fields and sectors, fair geographical representation. • Acting as evaluator: very effective way to learn first-hand about the European funding process; gain insight into state of the art topics in the research field of one’s interest; very effective way to learn how to write successful proposal

  3. Evaluation panels • Chemistry (CHE) • Social Sciences and Humanities (SOC) • Economic Sciences (ECO) • Information Science and Engineering (ENG) • Environment and Geosciences (ENV) • Life Sciences (LIF) • Mathematics (MAT) • Physics (PHY)

  4. Procedure • Three evaluators draft individual evaluation reports for each proposal (remotely) • A consensus report, the so-called Evaluation Summary Report (ESR), establishes the proposal’s final grade (remotely and centrally) • Proposals are ranked according to their grade. • Funding will be provided to eligible projects in descending ranking order according to the available budget for each panel

  5. Evaluation criteria and thresholds • Excellence (weight 50%) • Impact (30%) • Implementation (20%) • Each criterion is scored 0 to 5 • For each individual section 3.5 out of 5 • Overall score of at least 10 out of 15

  6. The proposal • Two main parts - the Administrative forms (Part A), and the actual Research proposal (Part B). • Part B: • Pre-defined structure: summary of the proposal, and one section for every evaluation criterion (total 4 sections) • Page limit: The main part (sections 1 – 4) should not exceed 10 pages

  7. Important lessons for a successful proposal (1) • It is vital to elaborate on each and every point of the evaluation criteria • “The proposed project is very concise and clearly outlined.” • “The proposal is comprehensively described.”

  8. Important lessons for a successful proposal (2) • Strengths may not outweigh weaknesses • “The originality of the research is not justified in sufficient detail”, even though “the aim of the proposal is timely” and “the state of the art is well argued”. • “the proposal failed to demonstrate the benefit for the mobility to ERA, and more details should have been provided concerning intra-European and industrial benefits.” Even though “the competencies acquired during the fellowship could have had a significant impact on the future career prospects of the applicant” and the proposal’s “outreach activities are very good and would have had a positive impact on the general public.”

  9. Important lessons for a successful proposal (3) • Perfection is possible • “No weaknesses were identified. This is a very high quality research proposal.” • “This is an outstanding proposal, well written and clearly aligned with the Horizon 2020 aims.”

  10. Excellence • Quality of innovative aspects and credibility of the research (including inter/multidisciplinary aspects) • Clarity and quality of transfer of knowledge/training for the development of the researcher in light of the research objectives • Quality of the supervision and the hosting arrangements • Capacity of the researcher to reach or reinforce a position of professional maturity in research

  11. Impact • Enhancing research- and innovation-related human resources, skills and working conditions to realise the potential of individuals and to provide new career perspectives • Effectiveness of the proposed measures for communication and results dissemination

  12. Implementation • Overall coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources • Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including quality management and risk management • Appropriateness of the institutional environment (infrastructure) • Competences, experience and complementarity of the participating organization and institutional commitment

  13. Further proposal sections • Section 5 – CV of the Experienced Researcher ( standard proposal template) • Section 6 – Capacity of the Participating Organizations (Each participating organization fills in a form (max one page), giving details on the supervisor, involved research premises, and the organization's experience. • Section 7 – Ethics issues (Ethics issues should be identified and proactively addressed in the proposal)

  14. Register as expert!http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/experts/index.html

More Related