Kostantinos AMOLOCHITIS

Call coordinator REA.B5

Spreading excellence and widening participation, Science with and for Society

• Science with and for Society (SwafS)-2020-two-stage (Stage-1)

• Vice-chair briefing for remote work

1. VC role

2. Schedule

3. Quality Control

4. Cross-cutting issues

5. Evaluation criteria

6. SEP

Agenda

1. Vice-chair role

• As a Vice-chair you carry out tasks similar to REA PO

As part of report drafting phase:

− Provide feedback on 1st IER (approx. 3)

Use SEP comments (no task)

− Provide feedback on 1st CR (approx. 3)

Use SEP comments (no task)

− Provide feedback on draft CRs (approx. 6-7 for ‘consensus discussions’ you will moderate)

Use SEP comments (no task)

During Remote consensus discussion phase: − Moderate ‘consensus discussions’ (approx. 6-7) − Perform quality check of CR of ‘consensus discussions’ you moderate

(approx. 6-7) Task in SEP => Review CR

− Perform quality check of ESR of meetings you moderate (approx. 6) Task in SEP => Review ESR

PO will send names of experts for IER check & proposals for CR check

-> no task for IER check (as of 1.5 in SEP, use 'monitoring by expert' to find

proposals for your expert) -> for CR check (rapporteur should send

SEP notification when ready for QC)

12 - 13 May

Check on 1st IER

2. Schedule VCs

29 May – 01 June

Check on pre-drafted CR for ‘consensus discussions’ you will moderate (approx. 9)

Watch the web-briefings for VCs & experts & read 'Manual for Expert-evaluators' before starting

11 May 27 May

Check on 1st CR

22-23 June

QC Review CR

25-26 June

QC Review ESR

02 June -19 June remote consensus

14 May

Feedback on 1st IER from PO/VC (via SEP comments)

12 -13 May

1st IER ready for QC (submit)

11 May

Contract should be signed

Watch web-briefings & read 'Manual' before starting

'Accept to evaluate' or 'decline' all assigned proposals (approx. 6)

Milestone 24 May

100% IERs

submitted

Quality check by PO/ VC 1st IERs (completeness, consistency, length)

2 Schedule evaluators

28 May

100% CRs

drafted and

saved in SEP

2 Schedule rapporteurs

27 May

1st CR ready for QC by

PO/VC

29 May – 01 June 20 May

Watch web-briefings & read 'Manual' before starting

'Accept' or 'decline' assigned proposals (approx. 6)

Rapporteurs & PO/VC

Quality check by PO/ VC 1st CR (completeness, consistency, length)

Deadline all draft CRs are Quality checked by PO/ VC (CRs are ready for the remote consensus discussion)

CR discussion

24 - 25 June

100% 'Approve CR' submitted by

all actors

2 Schedule remote consensus

QC Approval

Remote consensus

- Discussion

starts Evaluators

+ Rapporteur + PO/VC

19 June

22 - 23 June

All CRs quality checked by PO/VC and ‘Review CR’ submitted in SEP

Evaluators, Rapporteurs & PO/VC

02 June

Discussion ends All evaluators should convey agreement on draft CR Rapporteur submits All ‘Write CR’ task

8 June

50% of write CRs agreed

and submitted

3. Quality Control

• For which proposals will you do QC ?

− 1st IER of approx. 3 experts

− 1st CR of rapporteur (approx. 3)

− All pre-drafted CRs of ‘consensus discussions’ you will moderate (approx. 6-7)

− All CRs/ESRs of ‘consensus discussions’ you will moderate (same 6-7 as above)

• What to use for QC?

− WP topic description, topic briefing slides & assessment grid (and if needed proposal template)

• PO

− Will inform you via email which IERs/CRs you need to check

• How will you interact with expert?

− Evaluators submit IER. Rapporteurs keep report in draft

− Using SEP comments

− When you have finished your check, add final comment in SEP 'QC complete' and click

on option to 'notify expert'.

− If IER needs to be re-opened, please ask your PO to re-open IER

At IER stage, evaluator can add comments but cannot

send notifications. As VC, you can send

comments & notify expert.

3. Quality Control

• QC for IER….

− Correct application of evaluation sub-criterion i.e. comments fit with

the sub-criterion text (see topic briefing slides used)

− Ensure statement for each element in assessment grid

− Coherence between comments and scores (ref. scoring scale, see topic

briefing slides)

− While some description can be included, it leads to a judgement

− OK to include details such as page numbers, WP numbers etc. -> can help

rapporteur to have a reference for checking context/factually correct

− Experts free to choose style

− No comments on language or spelling

− While not sent to applicants, it is crucial input for the next stage of

the evaluation i.e. pre-drafting CR

3. Quality Control

• QC for pre-drafted CR….

− Statements fit with sub-criterion

− Any cross-cutting issues addressed

− 'Points of discussion' clearly highlighted in paragraph under

corresponding sub-criterion i.e. ’no consensus based on 3 IERs’

− No contradictory statements or double penalisation

− No scores

− 'Semi-final' state to ensure an efficient remote consensus

discussion

4. Cross-cutting issues

• Applicants need to consider these elements in their proposals: − You should check how corresponding 'cross-cutting issue' is integrated in proposal and

consider this under the relevant sub-criterion indicated in topic briefing slides

A successful proposal is expected to address them, or convincingly explain why not relevant

Proposals addressing cross-cutting issues which are not explicitly mentioned in the scope of the topic can also be evaluated positively

− As stated in the general introduction of the WP, all SwafS topics are expected to support one or more of the Sustainable Development Goals

H2020 Cross-cutting issues integrated in SwafS WP

RRI Gender Open Science SSH

SwafS-01 SwafS-01 SwafS-24

4. Cross-cutting issues

• Responsible Research & Innovation (RRI) is cutting across Horizon 2020, many SwafS topics have a direct relation with RRI as a cross-cutting issue.

• RRI is an inclusive approach to R&I: it implies that societal actors work together to better align both the R&I process and its outcomes with the values, needs and expectations of society.

• In practice, under Horizon 2020, RRI is implemented as a package of actions across RRI dimensions:

RRI dimensions

Ethics and Research Integrity

Open Access

Public Engagement

Gender Science Education

Take into account the ethical dimension

Increase access to scientific results

Engage society more broadly

in its R&I activities

Take-up gender equality and gender dimension in the R&I process and content

Promote formal and informal

science education

For more info check the Manual for expert-

evaluators

4. Cross-cutting issues

• Gender: a topic is gender relevant when it's expected that findings affect women and men differently. Gender dimension should be considered in proposals e.g. including a gender analysis/specific studies.

Note that this is different from gender balance in teams &

management structures

For RIA , gender dimension now explicit in excellence, 4th sub-criterion

5. Evaluation criteria CSA

To the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the topic description in the work programme: • Clarity and pertinence of the objectives • Soundness of the concept, and credibility of the proposed methodology • Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures

Excellence

• The extent to which the outputs of the project would contribute to each of the expected impacts mentioned in the work programme under the relevant topic

Impact

SwafS-01

5. Evaluation criteria RIA

To the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the topic description in the work programme: • Clarity and pertinence of the objectives • Soundness of the concept, and credibility of the proposed methodology • Extent that proposed work is beyond the state of the art, and demonstrates innovation potential

(e.g. ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts and approaches, new products, services or business and organisational models)

• Appropriate consideration of interdisciplinary approaches and , where relevant, use of stakeholder knowledge and gender dimension in research and innovation content.

Excellence

• The extent to which the outputs of the project would contribute to each of the expected impacts

mentioned in the work programme under the relevant topic

Impact

SwafS-24

6. SEP step-by-step

1. Notification by email 2. Login

3. Retrieve proposal 4. Enter comments & 5. Notify expert

How to access SEP? (3 possibilities)

- From email notification,

OR

- Type 'SEP evaluation' in Internet explorer

OR

- Application link (see info box)

- Click =>

6. SEP: comments

• To add comments, click on 'expand comments'

• Click on 'start a new conversation' to launch a comment

• To comment directly on one of the criterion, click on the corresponding criterion Excellence, Impact etc.

• You can also respond directly to a comment by clicking on the arrow beside the user's name

• You should tick the box 'send also notifications' & tick name of expert for IER / tick 'rapporteur' for CR

Add comments Start a new conversation

1 28

References & contacts

• References

− Work Programme 2018-2020

− Topic briefing slides (& FAQs in annex) & assessment grid

− Manual for experts

− Proposal template

CSA

RIA

− SEP manual

• Contacts

Call Coordinator team: REA-SWAFS@ec.europa.eu

Project Officer (PO): silvia.Osipof@ec.europa.eu (SwafS-24)

david.monteiro@ec.europa.eu and Antonio.SCARAFINO@ec.europa.eu

(SwafS-01)

Read carefully topic description + introduction to WP

Good luck!

Thank you for your attention