Annex II



Self-evaluation form

This form is made available to applicants who may themselves wish to arrange an evaluation of their proposal (e.g. by a disinterested colleague) prior to final editing, submission and deadline. The forms used by the experts during the Commission evaluation will be broadly similar, although the final layout may differ.

Marie Curie European Reintegration Grants (ERG)

|Proposal No.: |Acronym: |Panel: |

I. Detailed evaluation

|Criterion 1. S&T QUALITY |

|Issues to be addressed when assigning an overall mark for this criterion: |

|Scientific/technological quality, including any interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects of the proposal |

|Research methodology |

|Originality and innovative nature of the project, and relationship to the 'state of the art' of research in the field |

|Timeliness and relevance of the project |

|Strengths of the proposal (in bullet point format): |

| |

| |

|Weaknesses of the proposal (in bullet point format): |

| |

| |

| |

|Overall comments: |

|(reflecting the relative importance of the strength and weaknesses above mentioned) |

| |

| |

|Overall mark (out of 5) |

|Note : The threshold is 3 |

|Criterion 2. RESEARCHER |

|Issues to be addressed when assigning an overall mark for this criterion: |

|Research experience |

|Scientific and technological quality of previous research during the Marie Curie Fellowship |

|Independent thinking and leadership qualities |

|Match between the fellow's profile and project |

|Strengths of the proposal (in bullet point format): |

| |

| |

|Weaknesses of the proposal (in bullet point format): |

| |

| |

| |

|Overall comments: |

|(reflecting the relative importance of the strength and weaknesses above mentioned) |

| |

| |

| |

|Overall mark (out of 5) |

|Note : No threshold |

|Criterion 3. IMPLEMENTATION |

|Issues to be addressed when assigning an overall mark for this criterion: |

|Quality of host organisation, including adequacy of infrastructures/facilities |

|Feasibility and credibility of the project, including work plan |

|Practical arrangements for the implementation and management of the scientific project |

|Strengths of the proposal (in bullet point format): |

| |

| |

|Weaknesses of the proposal (in bullet point format): |

| |

| |

|Overall comments: |

|(reflecting the relative importance of the strength and weaknesses above mentioned) |

| |

| |

|Overall mark (out of 5) |

|Note : No threshold |

|Criterion 4. IMPACT |

|Issues to be addressed when assigning an overall mark for this criterion: |

|Benefit to the career of the researcher from the period of reintegration |

|Capacity to developed lasting cooperation with the previous country of the Marie Curie Fellowship |

|Potential of transferring knowledge to host |

|Potential and quality of lasting professional integration (expected length of work contract, expected career development) |

|Strengths of the proposal (in bullet point format): |

| |

| |

|Weaknesses of the proposal (in bullet point format): |

| |

| |

|Overall comments: |

|(reflecting the relative importance of the strength and weaknesses above mentioned) |

|Overall mark (out of 5) |

|Note : No threshold |

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEGOTIATION AND/OR INDICATORS TO MONITOR PROGRESS OF PROJECT:

|For Commission use only. |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

II. Evaluation Summary

Marks for the evaluation criteria should reflect the quality of the proposal as submitted by the applicants.

|Criterion |Mark |Weight |Score |Criterion |Mark |Weight |Score |

|1. S&T Quality | |30% | |3. Implementation | |20% | |

|2. Researcher | |30% | |4. Impact | |20% | |

|Total score expressed out of 5 (threshold 3.5) | |

|Total score expressed out of 100 (threshold 70%) | |

III. Ethical Issues

|Does this proposal raise ethical issues? Yes ( No ( |

|Please refer to the list of issues in the Ethical Issues Report (EIR) |

|If yes, please indicate (after completing the EIR Form) |

|if this proposal should be referred to the Ethical Review Panel Yes ( No ( |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download