Transcript www.crui.it
CRUI La ricerca per la qualità della vita: la priorità "salute" del 7° Programma Quadro Ferrara, 25 ottobre 2006, Aula Magna - Palazzo Bevilacqua Costabili Nona tappa del "Viaggio della Ricerca in Italia" Il processo di valutazione dei progetti europei: Marie Curie Actions Esperienze di un valutatore nel corso di FP 5 e FP 6 Silvano Capitani LIFE SCIENCES Expert Evaluator Ambito della valutazione Structuring the European Research Area Human Resources & Mobility Marie Curie Actions (FP 5 & FP 6) People (FP 7) Individual-driven actions Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships (IEF) Marie Curie Outgoing International Fellowships (OIF) Marie Curie Incoming International Fellowships (IIF) HRM evaluation criterion Threshold mark (0-5) Weighting (%) Scientific Quality of Project - 15 Quality of the Researchers 4 15 Quality of the Research Training Activities 3 15 Quality of the Host - 15 Management and Feasibility - 5 Added Value and relevance to the objectives - 35 40 35 Weighting (%) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Scientific Quality of Project Quality of the Researchers Quality of the Research Training Activities Quality of the Host Management and Feasibility HRM evaluation criterion Added Value and relevance to the objectives Marks Excellent 5 4 3 2 4.9 4.0 3.9 3.0 2.9 Very Good Good Fair Cannot be improved High degree of agreement among evaluators Some excellent points, Very good overall with respect to the criteria Some very good points and some weaknesses. Good overall with respect to criteria Some notable weaknesses 2.0 1 1.9 1.0 0 Poor Poorly presented, confusing information or poor technical content Fail or missing information 1. Scientific Quality of Project • Scientific/ technological quality including any interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects of the proposal • Research Methodology • Originality and innovative nature of the project and relationship to ‘state of the art’ of research in the field • Timeliness and relevance of the project 2. Quality of the Researchers • Research experience • Research results including patents, publications, teaching etc. • Independent thinking and leadership qualities • Match between the fellow’s profile and project • Potential for reaching a position of professional maturity • Potential to acquire new knowledge 3. Quality of the Research Training Activities • Clarity and quality of the research training objectives for the researcher • Relevance and quality of additional scientific training offered, including acquisition of complementary skills 4. Quality of the Host • Scientific expertise in the field • Quality of the group/supervisors • Expertise in training researchers in the field and their capacity to provide mentoring/tutoring • International collaborations • Quality of infrastructure / facilities 5. Management and Feasibility • Practical arrangements for the implementation and management of the scientific project • Feasibility and credibility of the project including work plan • Practical and administrative arrangements and support for the hosting of the fellow 6. Added Value and relevance to the objectives • Relevance of the proposal to one or more of the objectives of the action (as specified in the HRM Work Programme) • Potential of acquiring competencies during the fellowships to improve the prospects of reaching and/or reinforcing a position of professional maturity, diversity and independence, in particular through exposure to complementary skills training • Contribution to career development or reestablishment (where relevant) • Extent to which the research contributes to the objectives of the European Research Area or other European policy objectives Convergenza fra i processi della compilazione e della valutazione • Il richiedente segue precise regole di compilazione della domanda, che sono conosciute anche dal valutatore, definite nella Guide for Proposers • Il valutatore fa riferimento a criteri di giudizio predefiniti, che sono noti anche al richiedente, riportati nelle Guidelines for Proposal Evaluation • Il valutatore, pur conservando libertà assoluta di giudizio, è chiamato a seguire a sua volta regole precise e ad esprimere pareri su punti specifici che il compilatore conosce al momento della preparazione del progetto E’ opportuno che si crei convergenza fra i due percorsi (Compilazione e Valutazione) per raggiungere un giudizio favorevole La documentazione disponibile per preparare un progetto è molto ampia A. Info pack, including: • The Call Text • The Guide for Proposers • The Work Programme of the HRM activity B. In addition: • The Guidelines on proposal evaluation and project selection procedures • Guidance notes for evaluators Come aumentare la probabilità di successo • Seguire fedelmente le indicazioni delle linee guida • Oltre agli aspetti scientifici, fornire descrizione accurata del management e del valore aggiunto (Science versus other criteria) • Avvalersi del supporto di esperti (National Contact Points, Agenzie ad hoc, …..) Proposal Rejection Eligibility Individual Evaluation Consensus Ethical Issues Rejection Thresholds Ranking by Commission Negotiation negative Rejection Result positive Commission Funding Decision