Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
een.ec.europa.eu
External review process for POD profiles
een.ec.europa.eu
The scoring system
External review process for POD profiles| 12/10/16| 2
• Advantages and innovative aspects• Clarity, coherence and understanding• Cooperation expectations• Guidelines and linguistic accuracy
een.ec.europa.eu
The scoring system
External review process for POD profiles| 12/10/16| 3
0 – 5 points for each category:
0 Blocking
1 Insufficient
2 Rather poor
3 Sufficient
4 Good
5 Excellent
een.ec.europa.eu
The scoring system
External review process for POD profiles| 12/10/16| 4
Score Status
17 - 20 ExcellentPublished15 - 16 Good
10 - 14 Sufficient
5 - 9 Rather poor On hold
0 - 4 Insufficient Rejected
• 2000 character text field to provide comments and explain the score
een.ec.europa.eu
The use of the ‘0’
External review process for POD profiles| 12/10/16| 5
• If the ER gives a ‘0’ for any single category it indicates that he/she considers the profile should be put on hold irrespective of the scores for the other categories because it fails to meet minimun requirements for that specific category.
een.ec.europa.eu
The use of the ‘0’
External review process for POD profiles| 12/10/16| 6
• BO submitted as a BR• BR submitted as a BO• TO submitted as a TR• BO submitted as a TO
een.ec.europa.eu
Profiles placed on hold
External review process for POD profiles| 12/10/16| 7
• Returned to profile creator’s dashboard with status ‘On hold from external review’
• The profile creator takes note of the ER’s comments and re-submits
• The profile returns to the External review dashboard (the 1st ER receives an e-mail notification)
een.ec.europa.eu
Review criteria
External review process for POD profiles| 12/10/16| 8
• Title: Must be completely free from typos and
grammatical errors• Reviewers can make small changes and accept the profile, but should
explain this in their comments and give a lower score.
Must be meaningful and understandable
een.ec.europa.eu
Review criteria
External review process for POD profiles| 12/10/16| 9
• Summary: Must be completely free from typos, grammatical errors and
unexplained acronyms• Reviewers can make small changes and accept the profile, but
should explain the changes and give a lower score. Must describe the key partnership types and these must be
consistent with what is written in the description and under ‘Types of Partnership Considered’
Must make sense and be plausible
een.ec.europa.eu
Review criteria
External review process for POD profiles| 12/10/16| 10
• The profile must be anonymous with no obvious reference to the company behind the profile, the product or brand name
• RDR profiles must state the EOI deadline.
een.ec.europa.eu
Review criteria
External review process for POD profiles| 12/10/16| 11
• Description The opening paragraph must not be a
verbatim repeat of the summary Must be clear and understandable The types of partners and partnerships
envisaged must be discussed Must be written in the 3rd person
een.ec.europa.eu
Review criteria
External review process for POD profiles| 12/10/16| 12
• Innovations and advantages Should not simply be a list of features, i.e.,
it should be clear why a stated advantage is an advantage (e.g. comparative, quantitative statements)
For TOs, the innovation/s should be defined
een.ec.europa.eu
Review criteria
External review process for POD profiles| 12/10/16| 13
• IPR If ‘Other’ is selected, comments field must
be completed to explain what is meant by ‘other’
Patent numbers or titles must not be disclosed
een.ec.europa.eu
Review criteria
External review process for POD profiles| 12/10/16| 14
• Type and role of partner sought Can either be used to expand on, or
summarise what has been written in the description re type and role of partner.
• Type/s of partnership considered Must be consistent with the summary and
description.
een.ec.europa.eu
The world’s largest support Network for SMEs with international ambitions
External review process for POD profiles| 12/10/16| 15
