Assessment

Evaluation Process

Evaluation will be made by one independent Evaluation Panel (EP) for both Topic A and Topic B to insure overall coherence and quality. It consists of experts from the scientific community and rep-resentatives of relevant stakeholder groups if appropriate, in order to meet the scientific and socie-tal vision of ERA4CS, and covers the full range of topics within the scope of the Call for Proposals. For step-two, at least 5 independent experts will evaluate each full proposal: 3 members of the EP and 2 external reviewers.

For Topic A: both pre-proposals (step-one) and full proposals (step-two) will be evaluated by the independent EP.

For Topic B: step-one full proposals are used to determine funding eligibility by the board of the official RPO representatives, while only step-two revised full proposals will be evaluated by the independent EP.

Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation criteria for the projects are based on the evaluation standards provided by the European Commission. The relevant items and thresholds are detailed below and summarized in Table 1.
For Topic A: criteria and items differ between step-one (pre-proposal) and step-two (full-proposal).
For Topic B: proposal evaluation is done only for step-two.

  1. Excellence
    1.1. Fit to objectives and chosen Topic of the call text
    1.2. (Scientific) quality and innovativeness, contribution to knowledge, originality, cutting-edge way of performing research
    1.3. Added value of European trans-national co-operation (only for step-two)
    1.4. Integration across the whole chain of climate service development from research to delivery of CS including feedback from users (only for Topic A)
  2. Impact
    2.1. Envisaged societal impacts (e.g., capacity and community building, networking effects, contributions to societal welfare and well-being, policy related or economic impact)
    2.2. Value and transferability for the user community
    2.3. Complementarity to other initiatives (only for step-two)
    2.4. Collaboration between providers and users (knowledge co-production), engagement of relevant stakeholders/awareness of stakeholder needs, transdisciplinary approach (only for Topic A)
    2.5. Institutional integration (only for Topic B)
  3. Quality and efficiency of the implementation
    3.1. Competence and expertise of the team and complementarities of the consortium (e.g. inter-disciplinary / inclusion of all necessary expertise /expertise in managing inter- and transdisciplinary research collaborations, gender balance) (only for step-two)
    3.2. Appropriateness of the conceptual approach, feasibility of aims and objectives of project, feasibility and suitability of project design and methods, appropriateness of resources and funding requested

The minimum threshold for each criterion is set at 3 points. In addition for Topic A step-two, sum of Criteria 1 and Criteria 2 scores should be at least 7 points. Finally for step-two selection, the sum of scores (out of 15) should be at least 10 points.

Important information: Please note that this table has been updated on 4 March 2016.

Criteria and items

Topic A
Step-1

Topic A
Step 2

Topic B
Step 2

Criteria 1 / Excellence threshold->

items:

minimum 3

minimum 3*

minimum 3

1.1 Fit to objectives and chosen Topic of the call text

x

x

x

1.2 (Scientific) quality and innovativeness, contribution to knowledge, originality, cutting-edge way of performing research

x

x

x

1.3 Added value of European trans-national co-operation

NA

x

x

1.4 Integration across the whole chain of climate service development from research to delivery of CS including feedback from users

x

x

NA

Criteria 2 / Impact threshold->

items:

minimum 3

minimum 3*

minimum 3

2.1.    Envisaged societal impacts (e.g., capacity and community building, networking effects, contributions to societal welfare and well-being, policy related or economic impact)

x

x

x

2.2.    Value and transferability for the user community

x

x

x

2.3.    Complementarity to other initiatives

NA

x

x

2.4.    Collaboration between providers and users (knowledge co-production), engagement of relevant stakeholders/awareness of stakeholder needs, transdisciplinary approach

 x

x

 

NA 

2.5.    Institutional Integration

NA

NA

X

*Sum of Criteria 1 + Criteria 2 threshold ->

NA

minimum 7

NA

 

 

 

 

Criteria 3 / Quality and efficiency of the implementation threshold->

items:

 

minimum 3

 

minimum 3

 

minimum 3

 

3.1.    Competence and expertise of team and complementarities of consortium (e.g. inter-disciplinary / inclusion of all necessary expertise /expertise in managing inter- and transdisciplinary research collaborations, gender balance

NA

x

x

3.2.    Appropriateness of the conceptual approach, feasibility of aims and objectives of project, feasibility and suitability of project design and methods, appropriateness of resources and funding requested

X

x

x

Sum of 3 Scores threshold ->

NA

minimum 10

minimum 10

Table 1: Relationship between topics, evaluation step and criteria items and thresholds

Scoring system

0           Not possible to evaluate / Fail
1           Poor
2           Fair
3           Good
4           Very Good
5           Excellent

Final selection will depend first on the sum of scores (up to 15), second on funding availability. In case a proposal is selected for funding, a negotiation phase will be made with the relevant organi-sations to take into account recommendations, including budget.