140 likes | 147 Views
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
E N D
How MSCA are evaluated?NatasaMarkovskaResearch Center for Energy and Sustainable DevelopmentMacedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
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
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)
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
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
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
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.”
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.”
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.”
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
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
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
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)
Register as expert!http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/experts/index.html