Transcript Slide 1

Marie Curie Individual
Fellowships
Building knowledge about evaluation
process and criteria into own proposal
(Guide for Applicants Annex 2)
Dr Dragana Avramov, PSPC
[email protected]
Brussels 6 November 2009
www.avramov.org
[email protected]
1
Evaluation Process
Submission
Full Proposal
Proposal
forms
Individual
reading
Evaluators
Criteria
Consensus
Evaluators
Evaluators
Criteria
Criteria
www.avramov.org
Finalisation
Rejection list
Proposals in
suggested
priority order
Eligibility
COMMISSION
Panel
EVALUATORS
[email protected]
COMMISSION
2
How a proposal is evaluated
Stage 1. Individual readings
 Each proposal is read independently by
three experts
 The experts each prepare an Individual
Evaluation Report IER on that proposal
www.avramov.org
[email protected]
3
How a proposal is evaluated
Stage 2. Consensus Group
 The three 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]
4
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]
5
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]
6
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
judjement to each proposal
Evaluate on 5 criteria (and use sub-criteria as
issues to be considered in the assessment)
www.avramov.org
[email protected]
7
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]
8
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
www.avramov.org
[email protected]
9
Evaluation criteria
(example for IEF)
www.avramov.org
[email protected]
10
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
MAKE SURE YOU PROVIDE
INFORMATION FOR EACH CRITERION
AND EACH SUB-CRITERION
www.avramov.org
[email protected]
11