Selection Process

The selection process will follow open, transparent and  merit-based procedures in order to ensure that the applications are evaluated in a competent and impartial manner. The process will be comprised of six stages, including an international peer review and an interview stage. Details on the selection process stages can be found here. 

Evaluation criteria and scoring system

Three standard evaluation criteria will be used: Excellence, Impact and Implementation. Such criteria will be employed both during the international peer review and during the interview stages. The evaluation criteria, along with their respective sub-criteria, and the standard scoring system are outlined below.


Evaluation Criteria:
  • Criterion 1: Excellence
  • Sub-criterion 1a:

    Quality, innovative aspects and
    credibility of the research (including
    inter/multidisciplinary, gender
    aspects)

  • Sub-criterion 1b:

    Clarity and quality of transfer of knowledge/training for the
    development of the researcher in
    light of the research objectives and
    planned secondment.

  • Sub-criterion 1c:

    Quality of the supervision and hosting
    (including intersectoral arrangements)

  • Sub-criterion 1d:

    Capacity of the researcher to reach or
    reinforce a position of professional
    maturity in research


  • Criterion 2: Impact 
  • Sub-criterion 2a:

    Enhancing research – and
    innovation – related human
    resources, skills, and working
    conditions to realise the potential
    of individuals and to provide new
    career perspectives.

  • Sub-criterion 2b:

    Effectiveness of the proposed
    measures for communication and
    results dissemination.


  • Criterion 3: Implementation 
  • Sub-criterion 3a:

    Overall coherence and effectiveness
    of the work plan, including
    appropriateness of the allocation of
    tasks and resources.

  • Sub-criterion 3b:

    Appropriateness of the
    management structures and
    procedures, including quality
    management and risk management.

  • Sub-criterion 3c:

    Appropriateness of the institutional
    environment (infrastructure).


Scoring System:

A score between 0 (very poor) and 5 (excellent) will be provided for each of the three evaluation criterion (i.e. excellence, impact and implementation) as a whole. Please note that the sub-criteria are only in place to assist reviewers/interviewers in determining the score for each evaluation criterion – reviewers/interviewers will not be required to provide scores to the sub-criteria.

Eligible applications will be first scored during the international peer review stage. Applications that proceed to the interview stage will receive a second score for such stage. For both the international peer review and interview stages,  a score between 0 (Very Poor) and 5 (Excellent) will be provided for each criterion:

Score 0 (Very Poor) – The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed owing to missing or incomplete information.

1 (Poor) – The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.

2 (Fair) – The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses.

3 (Good) – The proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present.

4 (Very Good) – The proposal addresses the criterion well, but a small number of shortcomings are present.

5 (Excellent) –  The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion. Any shortcomings are minor.


Weighting and priority ranking:

The evaluation criteria are weighted differently and the set of weightings shown below will be applied to the scores provided for each of the criterion.  

The priority outlined below will be used to rank applications that achieve exactly the same score.

  • Criterion 1: EXCELLENCE
    • Weighting: 50%  
    • Priority: 1
  • Criterion 2: IMPACT
    • Weighting: 30% 
    • Priority: 2
  • Criterion 3: IMPLEMENTATION
    • Weighting: 20% 
    • Priority: 3

Final weighted scores after the international peer review and interview stages:
  • For each application, at the end of the international peer review and interview stages, the weighted scores for each criterion will be added producing a final weighted score for each stage. After each of these stages, the maximum final score for a given application will be 5 (excellent).

Thresholds:
  • There will be no thresholds per individual evaluation criterion. However, an overall threshold of 70% is applicable to the final weighted scores produced at the end of the international peer review and interview stages.
  • Only applications, with an international peer review final weighted score equal to or higher than 3.5, will proceed to the interview stage.
  • At the end of the interview stage, the final weighted score from the international peer review and interview stages will be added – with equal weighting – producing a combined final weighted score (i.e. this will be the  final mark for that application).
  • The maximum combined final weighted score for a given application will be of 10.
  • Only applications with a combined final weighted score equal to or higher than 7.0 will be considered for funding. This will apply regardless of the number of applications received.

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 754489.