View
218
Download
4
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org 1
Marie Curie Initial Training Networks (ITN)
Building knowledge about evaluation process and criteria into own
proposal
Dr Dragana Avramov, PSPCavramov@avramov.org
Brussels 6 November 2009
www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org 2
Evaluation Process
Full Proposal
Proposalforms
Evaluators
Eligibility
Evaluators Evaluators
PanelSubmission ConsensusIndividual
reading
Proposals insuggestedpriority order
Rejection list
Finalisation
CriteriaCriteria Criteria
COMMISSION COMMISSIONEVALUATORS
www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org 3
How a proposal is evaluated
Stage 1. Individual readings Each proposal is read independently
by three to five experts The experts each prepare an
Individual Evaluation Report IER on that proposal
www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org 4
How a proposal is evaluated
Stage 2. Consensus Group The three/five experts who read
the proposal meet together to come to a consensus view
The group prepares a Consensus Report CR
www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org 5
How a proposal is evaluated
Stage 3. Panel meeting All the experts within the area
meet together as a panel to review ranked list
In case of ex aequo priority criteria are applied
www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org 6
Who are the evaluators?
Must be registered in the database of experts for research activities FP7 EMM
https://cordis.europa.eu/emmfp7/ Selected from the database on the
basis of the high level of expertise relevant to a specific call
www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org 7
What is expected from evaluators?
Give a fair and clear opinion on each proposal
Evaluate proposals against the Objectives and impact defined in the Workprogram
Evaluate proposal as written. Make no additional assumptions, do not read between the lines
Consistently apply the same standard of judgement to each proposal
Evaluate on 4 criteria (and use sub-criteria as issues to be considered in the assessment)
www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org 8
Responsibilities of evaluators
Evaluators are: Independent : they do not represent their
employer, nor their country Objective : evaluate the proposal as written Accurate : use the official evaluation criteria only Consistent : apply the same standard of
judgment to each proposal Incommunicado : external contacts on
evaluation are not permitted during or after the evaluation
www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org 9
What does this mean for applicants?
Reassurance that the evaluation process is of high quality, guided by principles of transparency, equality of treatment, fairness and transparency
Never loose out of sight Evaluation criteria description when drafting your proposal (see Annex 2 Guide for Applicants)
www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org 10
Evaluation criteria
S&T Quality Threshold = 3 Training Threshold = 4 Implementation Threshold =3 Impact
www.avramov.org avramov@avramov.org 11
Evaluation sub-criteria
The sub-criteria are issues that the experts should consider in the assessment of the relevant criterion
Failure to meet any of the sub-criteria is reflected in the overall criterion mark
Recommended