Evaluation criteria

Pre-proposals will be reviewed under the following evaluation criteria on a scale from 0-51):

  1. Scientific Quality/Intellectual Merit (proposals have to score minimum 3 points)
    • Scientific quality and innovativeness of the objectives and approach of the research plan
    • Added scientific value to be expected from the international research collaboration
  2. Envisaged Societal Relevance and Impact (proposals for call topic 1 have to score minimum 4 points; proposals for call topic 2 have to score minimum 3 points)
    • Relevance of the goals and objectives of the research plan relative to the call theme
    • Contribution to the overall JPI Climate Vision 2)
    • Approach to co-design of full proposal with stakeholders (“stakeholders“ refers to actors outside the scientific community e.g. change agents and knowledge partners such as policymakers, regulators, NGOs, municipalities / local authorities or business and industry) 
  3. Quality of the Consortium (proposals have to score minimum 3 points)
    • Competence and expertise of the team and a balance of complementary skills within the consortium, including
    • Epertise and experience in managing inter- and trans-disciplinary research collaborations
    • Balanced cooperation

Full proposals will be reviewed under the following evaluation criteria on a scale from 0-53):

  1. Scientific Quality/Intellectual Merit (proposals have to score minimum 4 points)
    • Scientific quality and innovativeness of the objectives and approach of the research plan
    • Added scientific value to be expected from the international research collaboration
  2. Envisaged Societal Relevance and Impact (proposals have to score minimum 3 points)
    • Relevance of the goals and objectives of the research plan relative to the call theme
    • Contribution to overall JPI Climate Vision 
    • Knowledge co-production with stakeholders / involvement of relevant stakeholders / awareness of stakeholder stakeholders (“stakeholders“ refers to actors outside the scientific community e.g. change agents and knowledge partners such as policymakers, regulators, NGOs, municipalities / local authorities or business and industry) 
    • Envisaged societal impacts (e.g., capacity and community building, networking effects, contributions to societal welfare and well-being, policy-related or economic impact)
  3. Quality of the Consortium (proposals have to score minimum 3 points)
    • Competence and expertise of team and complementarities of consortium (inter-disciplinary / inclusion of all necessary expertise /expertise in managing inter- and trans-disciplinary research collaborations, gender balance)
    • Balanced cooperation
    • Level of shared responsibility and commitment in the incorporation of relevant scientific disciplines in terms of an active interdisciplinary project co-design, as appropriate
  4. Resources and Management (proposals have to score minimum 4 points)
    • Appropriateness and justification of work plan, resources and funding requested
    • Considerations relating to the JPI Climate sustainability principle: Consideration of projects’ climate footprint and contributions to a climate-friendly research system, e.g. in terms of (virtual) meetings, travels and energy use.

1) The scores are read as: 0= Not possible to evaluate / Fail; 1=Poor; 2=Fair; 3=Good; 4=Very Good; 5=Excellent
2) See Vision chapter in the JPI CLIMATE Strategic Research Agenda (http://www.jpi-climate.eu/publications/10826597/JPI-Climate-Strategic-Research-Agenda)
3) The scores are read as: 0= Not possible to evaluate / Fail; 1=Poor; 2=Fair; 3=Good; 4=Very Good; 5=Excellent
4) See Vision chapter in the JPI CLIMATE Strategic Research Agenda 
(http://www.jpi-climate.eu/publications/10826597/JPI-Climate-Strategic-Research-Agenda)