George Th' Tsangaris, Ph'D'

1
Proposal Evaluation Process
George Th. Tsangaris, Ph.D. Proteomics Research
Unit Center of Basic Research II
2
Proposal Evaluation and Project Selection Process
Proposal
Evaluators
Individual evaluation
Consensus Group Meeting in Brussels
Ranking Panel Meeting in Brussels
3
Initial comment
The evaluator acts on a personal basis not as a
national representative, employer representative
etc. Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality
Declaration is signed prior to beginning the
evaluation process.
4
Proposal
Evaluators
1st Step
Individual evaluation
2nd Step
Consensus Group Meeting in Brussels
Ranking Panel Meeting in Brussels
5
Proposal
1st Step
Evaluators
5 - 7 proposals per evaluator
Individual evaluation
3 - 5 evaluators per proposal
Consensus Group Meeting in Brussels
Ranking Panel Meeting in Brussels
6
Proposal
Evaluators
Individual evaluation
Criteria
If the evaluator believes that the proposal is
addressing a topic and instrument as laid out in
the call.
Consensus Group Meeting in Brussels
Ranking Panel Meeting in Brussels
Yes
No
7
Proposal
Evaluators
Individual evaluation
Criteria

• Scientific and/or technological
• excellence (relevant to the topics addressed
  by the call).

Consensus Group Meeting in Brussels

• Soundness of the concept and quality of the
  objectives.
• Progress beyond the state-of-the-art.
• Quality and effectiveness of the methodology and
  the
• associated workplan.

Ranking Panel Meeting in Brussels
8
Proposal
Evaluators
Individual evaluation
Criteria
2. Quality and efficiency of the implemen-
tation and the management.
Consensus Group Meeting in Brussels

• - Appropriateness of the management structure and
  procedures.
• - Quality and relevant experience of the
  individual participants
• - Quality of the consortium as a whole.
• Appropriateness of the allocation and
  justification of the
• resources to be committed (budget, staff,
  equipment).

Ranking Panel Meeting in Brussels
9
Proposal
Evaluators
Individual evaluation
Criteria
3. Potential impact through the development,
dissemination and use of project results.
Consensus Group Meeting in Brussels

• Contribution, at the European and/or
  International level, to the
• expected impacts listed in the work program
  under relevant
• topic/activity
• Appropriateness of measures for the
  dissemination and/or
• exploitation of project results, and management
  of intellectual
• property.

Ranking Panel Meeting in Brussels
10
Proposal
Evaluators
Individual evaluation
All criteria scored and individual scores
detailed justified.
The threshold for individual criteria is 3. The
threshold for the overall project score is 10.
Consensus Group Meeting in Brussels
For each criterion under examination, score
values indicate the following assessments 0 -
The proposal fails to address the criterion under
examination or cannot be judged due to
missing or incomplete information 1 - Very poor.
The criterion is addressed in a cursory and
unsatisfactory manner. 2 - Poor. There are
serious inherent weaknesses in relation to the
criterion in question. 3 - Fair. While the
proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there
are significant weaknesses that
would need correcting. 4 - Good. The proposal
addresses the criterion well, although certain
improvements are possible. 5 - Excellent. The
proposal successfully addresses all relevant
aspects of the criterion in question.
Ranking Panel Meeting in Brussels
11
Proposal
Evaluators
Individual evaluation
All criteria scored and individual scores
detailed justified.
Consensus Group Meeting in Brussels
Individual Evaluation Report
Ranking Panel Meeting in Brussels
12
Proposal
Evaluators
2nd Step
Individual evaluation
Proposal Rapporteur
Consensus Group Meeting in Brussels
1. The proposal rapporteur introduce the
proposals during the Evaluators Meeting. 2.
The proposal rapporteur is responsible for the
production of the Consensus Report.
Ranking Panel Meeting in Brussels
13
Proposal
Evaluators
Individual evaluation
Consensus Group Meeting in Brussels
Extensive discussion for the proposal evaluation
1. The consensus scores assigned to a
particular proposal reflect the quality
of the overall proposal for each
evaluation criterion. 2. If the a consensus
score awarded for any evaluation criterion fails
to reach the threshold the proposal rejected and
the evaluation stopped. 3. If the overall
consensus score of a proposal is below 10 out of
15, the proposal rejected.
Ranking Panel Meeting in Brussels
14
Proposal
Evaluators
Individual evaluation
Consensus Group Meeting in Brussels
Extensive discussion for the proposal evaluation
Ranking Panel Meeting in Brussels
Consensus Report
Includes also the opinion of the panel about the
EC requested funding, in relation to the tasks
and activities to be carried out
15
Proposal
Evaluators
Individual evaluation
Consensus Group Meeting in Brussels
The Ranking Panel is chaired by the Commission,
ensures fair and equal treatment of the proposals.

• Examination and comparison of the consensus
  reports.
• Where it necessary propose a new set of scores.
• 3. Recommends a priority order for proposals
  with the same score.

Ranking Panel Meeting in Brussels
16
Proposal
Evaluators
Individual evaluation
Consensus Group Meeting in Brussels
Evaluation Summary Report for each proposal. The
list of proposals with their final scores. The
Panel Report and recommendations.
Ranking Panel Meeting in Brussels
17
Thank you for your attention
George Th. Tsangaris, Ph.D. Proteomics Research
Unit Center of Basic Research II
18
(No Transcript)