Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
www.avramov.org [email protected] 1
Marie Curie Initial Training Networks (ITN)
Building knowledge about evaluation process and criteria into own
proposal
Dr Dragana Avramov, [email protected]
Brussels 6 November 2009
www.avramov.org [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 10
Evaluation criteria
S&T Quality Threshold = 3 Training Threshold = 4 Implementation Threshold =3 Impact
www.avramov.org [email protected] 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
![FP7: Marie Curie Actions [Research Executive Agency Marie Curie Actions – Networks] Initial Training Networks (ITN)](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/56649dde5503460f94ad7123/fp7-marie-curie-actions-research-executive-agency-marie-curie-actions-.jpg)
