El proceso de

evaluación en

H2020 – MSCA

Zamudio, 2014-06-03

Marie Sklodowska-Curie

ekintzen informazio

jardunaldia Euskadin

3

El proceso de evaluación (I)

Horizon 2020 Grants Manual – Section on proposal submission and evaluation, v1.0 11/dec/2013

4

El proceso de evaluación (II)

May be

remote

C

R

5

Las puntuaciones

En algunas convocatorias se admiten “medios puntos” o incluso décimas

6

Evaluación en MCSA – H2020

Excellence Impact Implementation

Weight in Evaluation 50% 30% 20%

Priority in case of ex-aequo 1 2 3

En casi todas las convocatorias MCSA

Each criterion will be scored from 0 to 5. The total score will be subject to a

threshold of 70% (10,5/15)

Ref. HORIZON 2020

WORK PROGRAMME 2014 – 2015

3. Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions

We will be guided by:

• Excellence. Projects must demonstrate high quality in

relation to the topics and criteria set out in the calls.

• Transparency. Funding decisions must be based on

clearly described rules and procedures, and applicants

should receive adequate feedback on the outcome of the

evaluation.

• Fairness and impartiality. All proposals submitted in

response to a call are treated equally and evaluated

impartially on their merits, irrespective of their origin or

the identity of the applicants.

• Efficiency and speed. Evaluation, award and grant

preparation should be done as quickly as possible

without compromising quality or neglecting the rules. 7

Criterios en la evaluación de propuestas

8

Evaluator Briefing.pdf

General Briefing for Evaluators (pdf presentation):

Criterios en la evaluación de propuestas – FP7

The EC appoints independent evaluators for each call from

the DB of experts. We look for:

• a high level of skill, experience and knowledge in the

relevant areas;

• provided the above condition can be satisfied, a balance

in terms of:

– skills, experience and knowledge;

– geographical diversity;

– gender;

– where appropriate, the private and public sectors,

– an appropriate renovation from year to year.

• In principle, your proposal will be examined by three

experts

9

Selección de Evaluadores

En la práctica, sí se trata

de expertos pero no

siempre en exactamente

el tema de la propuesta

concreta

Contractualmente obligatorio:

• Confidential

• Avoid / declare Conflicts of Interest

– Se detallan mucho en el Contrato entre la CE y el Evaluador.

• do not, under any circumstances, contact the

applicant/ referees/ middle-parties/ etc.

• Return / erase confidential documents

10

Para los Evaluadores

• Write your comments using full and clear sentences for

each criterion;

• Avoid summarising the proposal. The proposer knows

what the proposal is about;

• Structure your report using strong and weak points based

on the given sub-criteria;

• Everything you write must be briefly justified. Therefore

do not use general statements such as: “The research

could have been better described”;

• Avoid generalisations “Country/Lab X is weak in this

area!!” If it is necessary to make a comment like this say

rather, e.g. “It has not been demonstrated in the

proposal that the host has the capacity to run this project”;

11

"Do's and Don'ts" for a good IER (1)

• Do not assume or anticipate the quality of an institution

(even prestigious): it must be clearly detailed and

demonstrated in the proposal: The individual laboratory

should also be carefully assessed- the rating of the

organisation and the host laboratory can be very

different. Stick to only what is stated and justified in

the proposal;

• Above all, do not make personal and defamatory

comments;

• Check the consistency of scores and comments;

Examples of statements to avoid: “very good candidate”

and then allocating a mark of 3.9, i.e. a rejection (because

of a threshold of 4 for the 'researcher' criterion);

12

"Do's and Don'ts" for a good IER (2)

13

Panel Review

• A list of proposals passing all thresholds,

along with a final score for each proposal

passing the thresholds and the panel

recommendations for priority order;

• A list of evaluated proposals having failed

one or more thresholds;

• A list of any proposals having been found

ineligible during the evaluation;

• A record of the hearings (if applicable)

Outcome of panel review

Comission

Ranked List

NOTA: la CE NO participa en la Evaluación.

Los Officers pueden actuar de Moderadores o facilitadores de consenso,

pero no opinan

• IMPACT es importante, incluso en Marie Curie. A

menudo se obvia, o se trabaja poco.

• La competencia es dura. Hay CVs/Proyectos muy

buenos que no se financian porque los hay mejores.

• Quizá en COFUND haya menos competencia.

• Sin embargo, se pueden ganar, y de hecho se ganan,

estas becas que son muy interesantes desde todos los

puntos de vista.

14

Conclusiones

15

Conclusiones E

TN

- 2

014

16

Conclusiones E

TN

- 2

014

17

Conclusiones E

TN

- 2

014

18

Conclusiones E

TN

- 2

014

19

Conclusiones E

TN

- 2

014

Mila esker.

Mikel.Emaldi@tecnalia.com Business Development / Programs