1 / 38

EVALUATION

TÜBİTAK 15 / 12 / 2003. EVALUATION. Intra-European (IEF) I nternational Outgoing (OIF) Fellowships I nternational I ncoming (IIF) International Re-integration Grants. Prof.Dr.Şakire Pöğün Ege Ün. Tıp Fakültesi (expert evaluator). Individual driven actions. Outgoing Fellowships

casper
Télécharger la présentation

EVALUATION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TÜBİTAK 15 / 12 / 2003 EVALUATION Intra-European (IEF)International Outgoing (OIF) FellowshipsInternational Incoming(IIF) International Re-integrationGrants Prof.Dr.Şakire Pöğün Ege Ün. Tıp Fakültesi (expert evaluator)

  2. Individual driven actions Outgoing Fellowships • World-wide • up to 2 years outside Europe + up to 1 year return phase Incoming Fellowships • World-wide • Return phase possible if from emerging, transition or developing country Intra-European Fellowships Return and Reintegration Mechanisms

  3. Marie Curie OutgoingInternational Fellowships • Researchers from EU and Associated States • Minimum 4 years experience or doctorate • Joint proposal by fellow and host institution • To Third Countries • Coherent project up to 3 years with 2 phases: • experience outside Europe up to 2 years and • obligatory return to Europe,typically half the duration of the 1st. phase • “valorisation” in Europe of experience gained • reinforce relations between EU and third countries

  4. Marie Curie IncomingInternational Fellowships • High level third country researchers • Minimum 4 years experience or doctorate • Joint proposal by fellow and host institution • Towards Europe • Return mechanism for researchers • from developing countries • from emerging and transition economies • reinforce the research potential of these countries • strengthen relations between the EU and third countries

  5. Marie Curie Return and Reintegration of European Researchers • having undertaken research outside Europe during at least 5 years • Precise project evaluated on its intrinsic merits • Up to 2 years funding for a 3 year contract • Research project (via host institution) • Compensate partly for the brain drain

  6. Calendar & Budget for 2003 to be confirmed

  7. Eligible Expenses

  8. Eligible expenses (IRG) Max: 80 000 Euros/year • All expenditure necessary for the project (On the basis of the reintegration project submitted by the proposer and approved by the commission) • Personnel other than the eligible researcher, equipment, consumables, travel, etc.

  9. Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships Aims To provide advanced training tailored to the researchers individual needs in order to become independent.

  10. Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships Who can Apply • Experienced researchers; • Mobility required; • EU or Associated States Nationals. • No age limits

  11. Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships Profile of the host institutions • Universities, research centres, or enterprises established and located in an EU or Associated State.

  12. Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships How does it work • The applicant applies to the Commission jointly with the host institution; • Commission selects the applicant and signs a contract with the host; • Selected fellow signs an agreement with the host; • Fellow stays from 1 to 2 years.

  13. Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships • Indicative scope of activity • For each 100 M €, this action should allow: • Conclusion of 750 contracts, involving 750 host organisations • Selection of 1400 researchers/year • The size of the projects will vary between 60 000 and 180 000 €

  14. Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships Provisional Timetable Envisaged date of publication: 17 December 2002 Envisaged Deadlines : one open call with 2 deadlines : March/April 2003 (~ 55 M€) February 2004 (~ 55 M€)

  15. PROPOSAL Eligibility Individual evaluation Consensus Ethical issues Thresholds Hearings Panel Ranking by Commision Commision rejection decision NEGOTIATION

  16. NEGOTIATION Negotiation result Consultation of Programme Committee Commission Funding Decision and/or Rejection Decision

  17. Proposal marking 0 - The proposal fails to address the issue under examination or cannot be judged against the criterion due to missing or incomplete information 1 – poor 2 – fair 3 – good 4 – very good 5 – excellent

  18. Activity Specific Evaluation Criteria • Scientific & technological excellence and the degree of innovation Scientific Quality of the Project Quality of Research Training • Ability to carry out successfully and to ensure its efficient management, assessed in terms of resources and competencies and including the organizational modalities foreseen by the participantsQuality of Host Quality of Researchers

  19. Activity Specific Evaluation Criteria • Relevance to the objectives of the specific programme (Scheme / Activity) • EU added value, critical mass of resources and contribution to Community policies • Quality of the plan for using or disseminating the knowledge, potential for promoting innovation, and clear plans for the management of intellectual property

  20. IEF/ OIF / IIF Scientific/ technological quality of the project Is the scientific content of the project important and relevant Originality/innovative aspects Assessment of the research method Assessment of the interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects of theproposal Does the proposal describe the state of the art for the scientific area and the relevance of the project Weight: %15 Threshold: -- Criterion(a):Scientific Quality of the Project

  21. IRG Scientific/ technological quality of the project Is the scientific content of the project important and relevant Assessment of the research method Assessment of the originality and innovative nature of the project or training area Weight: %15 Threshold: -- Criterion(a):Scientific Quality of the Project

  22. Criterion(a):Quality of Research Training IEF/ OIF / IIF • Clarity and quality of the research training objectives for the researchers • Complementary training and skills offered Weight: %15 Threshold: 3

  23. Criterion(a):Quality of Research Training IRG • Clarity and quality of the research training objectives for the researchers • Complementary training and skills offered Weight: %15 Threshold: 3

  24. Criterionb):Quality of Host IEF/ OIF / IIF • Scientific expertise in the field • Quality of the group/supervisors • Expertise in training researchers in the field and their capacity to provide mentoring/tutoring • International collaborations • Quality of infrastructure / facilities Weight: %15 Threshold: --

  25. Criterionb):Quality of Host IRG • Scientific expertise in the field • Quality of infrastructure / Facilities • Expertise in training researchers in the field and their capacity to provide mentoring/tutoring; • Quality of the group/supervisors • International collaborations Weight: %15 Threshold: --

  26. REFERENCE LETTERS! Criterion b): Quality of Researchers IEF/ OIF / IIF • Research experience, • Research results; independent thinking and leadership qualities • Potential for the development of the researchers • Suitability of skills for the project proposed Weight: %15 Threshold: 4

  27. REFERENCE LETTERS! Criterion b): Quality of Researchers IRG • Research experience • Research results • Independent thinking and leadership qualities • Adequacy of skills for the project proposed Weight: %15 Threshold: 4

  28. Criterion (b):Management and Feasibility IEF/ OIF / IIF • Ability to carry out the action successfully and to ensure its efficient management, assessed in terms of resources and competencies and incl. the organizational modalities foreseen by the participants • Practical arrangements for the implementation and management of the fellowship • Feasibility and credibility of the project methodological approach to the project and work plan Weight: %5 Threshold: --

  29. Paid position! Criterion (b):Management and Feasibility IRG • Practical arrangements for theimplementation and management of the fellowship • Feasibility and credibility of the project • Methodological approach to the project and work plan Weight: %5 Threshold: --

  30. Criterion (c):Relevance to the objectives of the specific programme(Scheme / Activity) IEF/ OIF / IIF • Benefit to the researchers from the period of advanced training/mobility • Match between project and researcher’s profile • Likeliness for the researchers to pursue the line of research after end of fellowship • Capacity of the fellowship to enhance EU scientific excellence (where appropriate) • For incoming fellowships: Contributing to the socioeconomic development of DCs by the transfer of knowledge and human capacity building (where appropriate) Weight: IEF %25; OIF & IIF%15 Threshold: --

  31. Criterion (c):Relevance to the objectives of the specific programme(Scheme / Activity) IRG • Benefit to the career of the researchers from the training/period of re-integration • Match between project and researcher profile • Contribution to scientific excellence by attracting a first class confirmed EU researcher • Prospects of successful re-integration within the framework of European Research Weight: %15 Threshold: 3

  32. Criterion (c):Added Value to theCommunity IEF/ OIF / IIF • Extent to which the proposed fellowship contributes towards the objectives of the European Research Area • Benefit of mobility through the transfer of knowledge and improved collaborations through the mobile researchers • Contribution to research excellence and European competitiveness For international fellowships • Potential for creating long term collaborations • Potential for improving the gender balance in the scientific/training area Weight: IEF %10; OIF & IIF%20 Threshold: --

  33. Criterion (c):Added Value to theCommunity IRG • Extent to which the proposed fellowship contributes towards the objectives of the European Research Area • Contribution to the reversal of brain drain to and recuperation of expertise from third countries Weight: %10 Threshold: --

  34. Consensus Report • Scientific quality of the project • Quality of thetraining activities • Quality of the host • Quality of the researcher • Management and feasibility • Relevance to the objectives of the activity • Added value to the Community Overall remarks (highlighting strengths and weaknesses)

  35. Consensus Report(YES or NO & Comments) • Does this proposal have ethical issues that need further attention? • Do you recommend this proposal to be reviewed by the Ethical Review Panel? • Has ethical approval from the country in which the research will take place been supplied in the proposal? • Is the research described in the proposal laboratory based? • Do you make any recommendadtions to be into account at negotiation? • Have you suggested indicators to be used to monitor the implementation of the proposal, if funded?

  36. Has the proposal passed all evaluation thresholds? (YES or NO)

More Related