Скачать презентацию Citizens and Governance in a Knowledge-based Society Guidelines Скачать презентацию Citizens and Governance in a Knowledge-based Society Guidelines

f8c88e227e64d26ebad247b80cce24e4.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 19

Citizens and Governance in a Knowledge-based Society Guidelines on Proposals Presented by Henry Scott, Citizens and Governance in a Knowledge-based Society Guidelines on Proposals Presented by Henry Scott, EKT

Overview Who can participate? Ø Evaluation procedure Ø Evaluation criteria Ø Selection process Ø Overview Who can participate? Ø Evaluation procedure Ø Evaluation criteria Ø Selection process Ø Opportunities for evaluators Ø The proposal itself Ø Pre-proposal check Ø Notification of intent Ø Hints regarding the contribution to the ERA Ø Advice to potential applicants Ø Further sources of information & help Ø

Who can Participate? Country Participation Money EU Candidate countries (BG, RO, Turkey) NO, FL, Who can Participate? Country Participation Money EU Candidate countries (BG, RO, Turkey) NO, FL, IS Israel Switzerland “INCO” countries “Rest of the world” Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, . . . Yes, but. . .

Evaluation Procedure Ø External, independent evaluators Ø Three to five evaluators per proposal Ø Evaluation Procedure Ø External, independent evaluators Ø Three to five evaluators per proposal Ø Consensus Meetings Ø Detailed consensus report Ø All blocks of criteria with equal weighting Ø Thresholds per block and overall (x out of 5) Ø Only proposals passing thresholds are eligible for funding

Two-Stage-Evaluation for No. E/IP Ø First Stage: l l l Open to all applicants Two-Stage-Evaluation for No. E/IP Ø First Stage: l l l Open to all applicants Proposals of maximum 25 pages Evaluated against key criteria: • IP: Relevance, S&T Quality • No. E: Relevance, Integration Ø Second Stage: l l l Open only for those passing the first stage Full proposals Evaluated against full range of criteria

Criteria for Networks of Excellence Ø Relevance to the objectives of the work programme Criteria for Networks of Excellence Ø Relevance to the objectives of the work programme (3) Ø Potential Impact (3) Ø Excellence of participants (3) Ø Degree of integration and the joint programme of activities (4) Ø Organisation and management (3) Overall threshold: 4

Criteria for Integrated Projects Ø Relevance to the objectives of the work programme Ø Criteria for Integrated Projects Ø Relevance to the objectives of the work programme Ø Potential Impact Ø S&T Excellence Ø Quality of the consortium Ø Quality of the management Ø Mobilisation of resources Overall threshold: (3) (4) (3) 4

Criteria for STREPs and CAs Ø Relevance to the objectives of the (3) programme Criteria for STREPs and CAs Ø Relevance to the objectives of the (3) programme Ø STREP: S&T Excellence/ CA: Quality of coordination Ø Potential Impact Ø Quality of the consortium Ø Quality of the management Ø Mobilisation of resources Overall threshold: (4) (3) 3. 5

Selection Ø Number of “positively” evaluated proposals (normally) exceeds available budget Ø Commission selects Selection Ø Number of “positively” evaluated proposals (normally) exceeds available budget Ø Commission selects among the “positively” evaluated proposals according to l l l balanced distribution between disciplines etc. coverage of research tasks structuring and integrating effects for the ERA Ø Selection needs approval of Member States

Evaluators needed. . . Ø Evaluation is crucial ! Ø Involvement of high quality Evaluators needed. . . Ø Evaluation is crucial ! Ø Involvement of high quality evaluators from all over Europe required Ø Stressful, but highly interesting task Ø Open call for applications from individuals and for suggestions from institutions: www. cordis. lu/experts/fp 6_candidature. htm

The Two Parts of a Proposal Ø Part A: Forms l l Factual information The Two Parts of a Proposal Ø Part A: Forms l l Factual information on partners, budget summary Specific for each instrument Ø Part B: Scientific part l l Objectives, Impact, Implementation Plan, Consortium, Management, Resources, Workplan, Workpackages, Milestones, Deliverables, … Specific for each instrument

Pre-Proposal Check Ø You can have an outline of your proposal checked by Commission Pre-Proposal Check Ø You can have an outline of your proposal checked by Commission staff Ø Strictly informal and not binding Ø Up to one month prior to deadline Ø Only one check per proposal Ø Preferably by e-mail to [email protected] eu. int Ø Please respect “roughly two pages”. . .

Notification (formerly ‘Pre-Registration’) Helps the Commission to prepare the evaluation process … Ø … Notification (formerly ‘Pre-Registration’) Helps the Commission to prepare the evaluation process … Ø … by providing them with an early “warning” on what kind of proposals they can expect Ø Notification possible via www. cordis. lu/calls/citizens Ø Notification does not commit you to submitting a proposal … Ø. . . and is not mandatory. Ø

Hints regarding the contribution to the ERA (1) Ø Rigorous comparative research (IP, STREP) Hints regarding the contribution to the ERA (1) Ø Rigorous comparative research (IP, STREP) Ø Meaningful cooperation within and between disciplines (No. E, IP) Ø Common/Shared infrastructures (No. E, IP) Ø Reviews of the state-of-the-art for broader dissemination (all) Ø Scientific knowledge base for policy making (Evidence on topical issues) (No. E, IP)

Hints regarding the contribution to the ERA (2) Ø Mapping of research competencies Ø Hints regarding the contribution to the ERA (2) Ø Mapping of research competencies Ø Links with national programmes or activities (No. E, IP) Ø Involvement of users and stakeholders (all) Ø Keep consortia open for new partners (No. E, IP) Ø Specialised training programmes (No. E)

Advice to potential applicants (1) Is it the right call, right instrument & right Advice to potential applicants (1) Is it the right call, right instrument & right topic? Ø Address the topic as comprehensively as possible Ø Give a complete description of the scientific approach Ø Is there a sound description of methodologies ? Ø Provide concise information on participants Ø Are there clear ideas on who will do what ? Ø What is the added value to the European Research Area? Ø

Advice to potential applicants (2) Explain the budget and respect the budgetary guidance Ø Advice to potential applicants (2) Explain the budget and respect the budgetary guidance Ø Keep length of applications within reasonable limits Ø Consider Impact, dissemination, users Ø Is it easy / tiring to read your proposal ? Ø Use the Pre-Proposal Check Ø Ask advice from your NCP and Commission helpdesks Ø

Information Package Ø Call Text Ø Work programme Ø Guide for Proposers (per instrument) Information Package Ø Call Text Ø Work programme Ø Guide for Proposers (per instrument) l includes (specific) Application Forms Ø Evaluation Guide Ø FP 6 in Brief Ø Financial guidelines Ø Download from http: //fp 6. cordis. lu/citizens/calls. cfm

Further help Ø Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS) helpdesk for technical problems with software: Further help Ø Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS) helpdesk for technical problems with software: [email protected] 6. org Phone: +32 2 233 37 60 Ø Intellectual Property Rights Helpdesk – free helpline available to English, French, Italian, German + Spanish speakers: [email protected] es tel +34 96 590 97 18 fax +34 96 590 97 15 Ø Henry Scott, Hellenic NCP for - Citizens & governance in a knowledge-based society - Science & society Tel: +30 210 7273 926, Fax: +30 210 7246 824 email: [email protected] gr