PROPOSAL WRITING AND EVALUATION: Guidance for applicants and evaluators for Calls in Horizon2020...

PROPOSAL WRITING AND EVALUATION:

Guidance for applicants and evaluators

for Calls in Horizon2020

Sergey Mikhalovsky,

Nazarbayev University, Astana

[email protected]

University of Brighton, UK

[email protected]

My recent experience with research funding

Co-ordinator, Principal Investigator or Team leader:European Union: FP6-MATISS (2006-2010)FP7-MONACO-EXTRA (2008-2012) FP7-OncoNanoBBB (2012-2015) FP7-ABREM (2010-2014), FP7-FRESP (2009-2012)FP7-Greenland (2009-2012)Interreg IIIA Stent (2005-2008) Interreg IVA Flax (2009-2012)TEMPUS III and TEMPUS IV (2005-2008, 2009-2012)

UK: Technology Strategy Board - FullFlush (2010-2013), Department of Health (2008-2013), Medical Research Council (2012-2015), The British Council (2014-2015), MES of Kazakhstan

My experience with proposal evaluation

FP5, FP6, and FP7 in nanotechnologies, environmental sciences and Marie Curie Programme (including Horizon 2020)

Erasmus Mundus I and II, Lead Expert in Life Sciences, Erasmus+

TEMPUS II and III, INTAS, EPSRC (UK), BBSRC (UK), TSB (UK), national programmes for Russia, Austria, Cyprus, France, Montenegro, USA and Kazakhstan

What about Kazakhstan?

Kazakhstan is on the list of International Cooperation Partner Countries (ICPC)

And eligible for most Horizon2020 projects!

A window of opportunity: BRICS countries are NOT eligible for EU funding in Horizon 2020!

Where to find information about EU funding?

Information about Horizon 2020 and ALL OTHER European Union initiatives and funding can be found on the website:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/home.html

5

7You should register on this site as an individual researcher:

Click EXTERNAL8

In future you would be able to access information via this site

9

Here you will find all information about Horizon 2020 and its calls

11

13

Rules on submission & evaluation

Basic principles Excellence. Projects selected for funding must

demonstrate a high quality in the context of 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 of their proposals.

Fairness and impartiality. All proposals submitted to a call are treated equally. They are evaluated impartially on their merits, irrespective of their origin or the identity of the applicants.

14

Rules on submission & evaluation

Basic principles Confidentiality. All proposals and related data,

knowledge and documents communicated to the Commission are treated in confidence.

Efficiency and speed. Evaluation, award and grant preparation should be as rapid as possible, commensurate with maintaining the quality of the evaluation, and respecting the legal framework.

Ethical and security considerations: Any proposal which contravenes fundamental ethical principles, or which fails to comply with the relevant security procedures may be excluded at any time from the process of evaluation, selection and award

15

The Three MainReference Documents

1 - Rules on submission and evaluation This is the common and official reference for Horizon2020

rules for submission of proposals, and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures.

2 – Information (in FP7 - Guide) for applicants The Guide for Applicants contains the essential information to guide

proposers through the mechanics of preparing and submitting a proposal.

All proposals shall contain a Part A (administrative forms) and a Part B (proposal description). Indications about the content and issues to be addressed are described in the Guides for Applicants

Please make sure that you read the “Guide for applicants” that corresponds to the funding scheme for the topic.

16

The Three PrincipalReference Documents

3 - The work programme: three complementary documents:

Work Programme - General Introduction

2014-2015 Work Programme: includes the topic’s description and criteria against which the proposals will be assessed.

Cooperation Work Programme - General annexes Annex 1: List of International Co-operation Partner Countries (ICPC) Annex 2: Eligibility and Evaluation Criteria for Proposals Annex 3: Forms of Grant and Maximum Reimbursement Rates for Projects

Funded Annex 4: General activities

17

IndependentIndependent expertsexperts Expert evaluators are at the heart of the Horizon2020

system Provide independent, impartial and objective advice

to the Commission they represent neither their employer, nor their country!

Significant funding decisions will be made on the basis of their advice They can also add value to projects through your comments

and suggestions

The integrity of the process is crucial They should follow the Code of Conduct annexed to the

appointment letter

Who evaluates? Selected from a wide pool from a database, on the

basis of keywords Minimum 3 evaluators per project Selected per call Replace about ¼ in any given area annually Sign confidentiality and conflict of interest

declarations Names published after evaluation (though not at call or

proposal level) Target at least 40% female Mix of geographical location and background To register: https://cordis.europa.eu/emmfp7

FP

7 –

How

to

appl

y

19

Overview of the Evaluation ProcessOverview of the Evaluation Process

Full Proposal

Proposalforms

Evaluators

Eligibility

Evaluators Evaluators Final rankinglist

PanelSubmission ConsensusIndividual

reading

Proposals insuggestedpriority order

Rejection list

Finalisation

CriteriaCriteria Criteria

COMMISSION COMMISSION

“rem

ote”

may

be

“rem

ote”

Role of experts

20

ProcessFor each proposal:

Proposal Xcopy 1

Proposal Xcopy 2

Proposal Xcopy 3

IERexpert 1

IER expert 2

IER expert 3

Consensus meeting

CR 3 experts

Note: There may be more than 3 evaluatorsIER=Individual evaluation reportCR=Consensus Report

“remote” May be “remote” and / or central

21

ProcessEthical Issues

The Consortium is asked to submit drafts of Information Sheet and Consent Form but does not need to submit copies of legislation

Proposals should comply with fundamental ethical principles relevant security procedures

… or be excluded from the process Check if the proposal has in fact ethical issues

If yes: tick ethical issues box in the CR Prepare Ethical Issues Report

22

ProcessEthical Issues

Although the main focus is on the ethical dimension (e.g. human rights and protection of human beings, animal protection and welfare, data protection and privacy, environmental protection, malevolent use of research results), Horizon 2020 will also look at ‘research integrity’ issues (e.g. fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, including misrepresenting credentials and authorship improprieties).

23

ProcessEvaluating a proposal

Three guiding principles: Objectivity

each proposal is evaluated as it is written Accuracy

The judgment is made against the official evaluation criteria, and nothing else

Consistency The same standard of judgment applies to

each proposal

24

ProcessThe evaluation criteria

Criteria adapted to each funding scheme and each thematic area specified in the work programme

Three main criteria:

Excellence (relevant to the topic of the call)

Soundness of the concepts; Clarity and pertinence of the objectives, Credibility of the proposed approach; Extent that proposed work is ambitious, has innovation potential, and is beyond the state of the art (e.g. ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts and approaches

25

The evaluation criteria (cont) Impact

The extent to which the outputs of the project should contribute at the European and/or

International level to:

The expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic;

Enhancing innovation capacity and integration of new knowledge;

Strengthening the competitiveness and growth of companies by developing innovations meeting the needs of European and global markets; and, where relevant, by delivering such innovations to the markets;

Any other environmental and socially important impacts;

Effectiveness of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results (including management of IPR), to communicate the project, and to manage research data where relevant;

Strengthening the competitiveness and growth of companies by developing innovations meeting the needs of European and global procurement markets

Quality and Efficiency of Implementation Individual participants and consortium as a whole Allocation of resources

26

The evaluation criteria (cont)

Quality and Efficiency of Implementation

Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources;

Complementarity of the participants within the consortium (when relevant);

Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management;

27

ProcessEvaluation Criteria

Applicable to ALL funding schemes1. S/T quality

(in relation to the topics addressed by

the call)

2. Implementation 3. Impact

Sound concept, and quality of objectives

Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures

Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants

Contribution, at the European and / or international level, to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic / activity

28

ProcessEvaluation Criteria

Collaborative projects1. S/T quality

(relevant to the topics addressed by the call)

2. Implementation 3. Impact

Progress beyond the state-of-the-art

Quality and effectiveness of the S/T methodology and associated work plan

Quality of the consortium as a whole (incl. complementarity, balance)

Appropriate allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment)

Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of projects results, and management of intellectual property.

29

Collaborative projects

Support to research projects carried out by consortia with participants from different countries, aiming at developing new knowledge, new technology, products, demonstration activities or common resources for research.

The size, scope and internal organisation of projects can vary from field to field and from topic to topic.Projects can range from small or medium-scale focused research actions to large-scale integrating projects for achieving a defined objectiveProjects may also be targeted to special groups such as SMEs, Specific International Co-operation Actions, etc.

Funding schemesFunding schemes

Process

30

ProcessProposals that are only

partly in scope

Note: The “S/T quality” of a proposal (first criterion) is evaluated to the extent that the content is relevant to the topic(s) addressed by the call E.g. If a proposal is only marginally relevant, or if

only one work package is relevant, the evaluator must downgrade the score – no matter how excellent is the science!

Relevance to the objectives of the call is also considered under “Impact” (third criterion) In relation to the sub-criterion “contribution to

expected impacts listed in the work programme”

31

ProcessProposal scoring:

Interpretation of the scores 0: The proposal fails to address the criterion under

examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information

1: Very poor. The criterion is addressed in a cursory and unsatisfactory manner.

2: Poor. There are serious inherent weaknesses in relation to the criterion in question.

3: Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses that would need correcting.

4: Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although certain improvements are possible.

5: Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.

32

ProcessProposal scoring

Each criterion is scored 0-5 Marks can go from 0 – 5 in steps of 0.5, i.e half-marks are allowed Experts are encouraged to use the whole range Scores must pass thresholds if a proposal is to be considered for funding

Thresholds apply to individual criteria… Threshold is 3

…and to the total score higher than the sum of the individual thresholds Threshold is 10

Note that to receive a mark of 5, a proposal does not have to be perfect. An excellent proposal can have minor shortcomings.

When writing comments in the IERs and Consensus Report, the severity of any weakness should be clearly stated, i.e. are they minor, moderate or significant

33

ProcessProposal scoring

Evaluate the proposal and conclude whether the proposal is Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor Failing to address the criterion

Score the proposal accordingly

34

ProcessCommission Follow-up

Evaluation summary reports sent to applicants “initial information letter” Redress procedure

Draw up final ranking lists Information to the Programme Committee Contract negotiation Formal consultation of Programme Committee (when required) Commission decisions Survey of evaluators Independent Observers’ reports

35

ProcessRedress

Proposers can complain if they believe there have been shortcomings in the handling of their proposal, and that these shortcomings have jeopardised the outcome of the evaluation process.

The quality and consistency of the evaluation reports (ESRs), derived directly from the CRs, is paramount to minimise the redress procedures

An interesting and innovative idea Strong consortium Experienced co-ordinator Complementarity of skills and expertise Perfect matching between the proposal and the

call At least 6 months to prepare a proposal European added value Sustainability after the end of the project Dissemination strategy

FP

7 –

Tip

s

Tips on writing a successful proposal

Please remember – evaluators judge your proposal at their face

value, i.e., on the basis of the text submitted for evaluation.

They only use additional sources if they need to check something you

said in the proposal. If, when reading their evaluation, you think they did not understand you, it is

YOUR fault

Why?

Good Money – typically 200,000-300,000 € per participating organisation for 2-3-4 years

More if you are the Lead Partner – all the money is distributed through you, which counts for your organisation – good for you and for your organisation – typically 1-2-3 million € for 2-3-4 years

Good Value for Money – typically 60% overheads

Why? (continued)

Fun – experience of different countries, cuisines and cultures, meeting new people

Knowledge transfer – opportunity to work in different labs, access to unique equipment and instruments, methods and techniques

Human mobility – you visit others and others visit you to exchange knowledge and experience

Fair competition and useful feedback

Why? (cont.)

Networking – you build up your own network There may be unique expertise somewhere in

Europe unavailable in this country Career enhancement Publicity – EC loves it and gives you lots of

opportunities to do that (even if you don’t want it...)

Recruitment of high quality researchers And you may even get a result...

What?

Incredibly diverse formats and degrees of participation:

(i) individual fellowships – No age limit, very well paid!

(ii) participation as a team – you can be paid or you can employ someone

(iii) co-ordinator – the same as (i) and (ii) plus management costs plus permanent headache.

What? (cont.)

Funding is available for salaries, overheads, travel, consumables, management, equipment and organisation of networking events.

How?

43

Regularly monitor the funding opportunitiesMost obvious source of funding for regular monitoring are: (i) Horizon2020 - become a regular visitor on this site: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/ portal/page/home and become familiar with the structure of this programme. It is the main but not the only source of R&D funding in Europe

How? (cont.)

(i) Be flexible with your idea of participation – sometimes there may be a Call which matches exactly what you want to do but that is unlikely.

(ii) Identify potential areas of interest by monitoring previous Calls and - important! – analysing success rate in previous Calls. If the success rate is less than 10% - don’t go for it, unless you are a winner in a National Lottery or somebody else is prepared to do the main job of writing for you.

How? (cont.)

Try to get information about forthcoming Calls – it is possible to do so by attending consultations in Brussels or elsewhere, contacting your NCP (National Contact Point), getting information from an insider, etc.

The earlier you know the contents of the future Call, the better your chances for success. When the Call has been announced, it is too late! You will have 2-3 months to submit a proposal from the date when the Call opens.

How ? (cont.)

There are also bottom-up Calls – these are my favourite – you can write about anything you like and the date of the new Call announcement is usually known well ahead, so you have plenty of time to think and prepare for the Call.

How ? (cont.)

There are also bottom-up Calls – these are my favourite – you can write about anything you like and the date of the new Call announcement is usually known well ahead, so you have plenty of time to think and prepare for the Call.

Erasmus+ programme offer in essence bottom-up Calls in Research&Education.

What to start with?

Formulate the idea, which fits a particular Call (probably several ideas to have a choice)

Identify potential partners – do a lot of networking, and do it all the time regardless of Calls.

Learn the Brussels speak – it takes time, but once you understand it – your chances for success are much higher.

What to do next?

You have to understand how to write a proposal Become an expert evaluator for FP8 – Horizon

2020 it is called

http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020-experts

It will help you to understand the evaluation process and ultimately improve your proposal writing skills

What to do next?

Write a proposal – preferably not by yourself if it is your first one.

Write a proposal yourself if you have done this before

Seek advice and assistance of people with experience: colleagues who have got such grants, Research Office

Interact with other partners Notify your line managers and finances about

your intention to submit a proposal in advance

S&T Quality of the proposal Concept and objectives. What are the main

ideas that led you to propose this work?

Provide sufficient elements on the planned S&T methodology and describe in detail the S&T objectives. Show how they relate to the topics addressed by the call, which you should explicitly identify. The objectives should be those achievable within the project, not through subsequent development. They should be stated in a measurable and verifiable form, including through the milestones and deliverables.

51

S&T Quality (cont.) Progress beyond the state-of-the-art. Describe the state-of-the-art in the area

concerned, and the advance that the proposed project would bring about. If applicable, refer to the results of any patent search you might have carried out.

S/T methodology and associated work plan. A detailed work plan should be presented, which should follow the logical phases of the implementation of the project.

52

S&T Quality (cont.) Describe the overall strategy of the work plan. Show the timing of the different WPs and their components Deliverables and milestones Describe any significant risks, and associated contingency

plans Milestones are control points where decisions are needed

with regard to the next stage of the project. For example, a milestone may occur when a major result has been achieved. Another example would be a point when the consortium must decide which of several technologies to adopt for further development. Intangible – something which cannot be touched.

Deliverables: report, prototype, material, etc. Tangible - something which can be touched.

53

Implementation

Management structure and procedures

Describe the organisational structure and decision-making mechanisms of the project.

Show how they are matched to the complexity and scale of the project.

Individual participants.

provide a brief description of the legal entity, the main tasks they have been attributed, and the previous experience relevant to those tasks. Provide also a short profile of the staff members who will be undertaking the work.

Implementation Work Plan

Describe the main tasks, methods, experimental techniques and their timetable.

Present the Work Plan in a form of a table, such as Gannt chart. Also it is useful to show relationship between different tasks (could be in the Gantt chart or a separate PERT -Programme (Project) Evaluation and Review Technique - diagramme.

Deliverables and milestones.

Suggest several Ds (tangible results) and Ms (intangible results and decision making points), by which the project progress can be monitored.

Implementation

hart

Gantt chart (http://www.me.umn.edu/courses/me4054/assignments/wbsgantt.html)

Implementation

hart

PERT diagramme, from Wikipedia

Implementation

Work Plan

Describe the main tasks, methods, experimental techniques and their timetable.

Present the Work Plan in a form of a table, such as Gannt chart. Also it is useful to show relationship between different tasks (could be in the Gannt chart or a separate PERT diagramme.

Deliverables and milestones.

Suggest several Ds (tangible results) and Ms (intangible results and decision making points), by which the project progress can be monitored.

Implementation Consortium as a whole.

Describe how the participants collectively constitute a consortium capable of achieving the project objectives, and how they are suited and are committed to the tasks assigned to them. Show the complementarity between participants. Explain how the composition of the consortium is well-balanced in relation to the objectives of the project.

Resources to be committed.

Show how the resources will be integrated in a coherent way, and show how the overall financial plan for the project is adequate. Infrastructure.

59

Implementation IP issues

Describe how the participants will protect new knowledge generated in the project and how its ownership will be shared

Risk factors

Every project has risks. If it has no risks – it is boring and not very original or innovative.

Describe these risks and briefly explain how you are going to deal with them.

Assess their probability (low, medium or high) and influence (low, medium or high).

60

ImpactWhat does your project bring to:Individuals involved in the project;Teams involved in the project;Consortium as a whole;Region, country as a whole; international dimensionNew IP – profitSocio-economic benefits, environmental significance, healthDevelopment, dissemination, use of results

61

Impact (cont.)

Dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of IP.

Describe the measures you propose for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and how these will increase the impact of the project. You should take into account a variety of communication means and target groups as appropriate (e.g. policy-makers, interest groups, media and the public at large). With regard to the innovation dimension, where appropriate, describe the potential areas and markets of application of the project results and the potential advantages of the resulting technologies/ solutions compared to those that are available today.

62

Impact (cont).

With regard to the innovation dimension, where appropriate, describe the measures you propose to increase the likelihood of market uptake of project results, such as: verification,

testing, and prototyping; supporting the development of technical standards; identifying and collaborating with potential users; identifying potential partners and sources of finance for commercialisation.

Describe also your plans for the management of knowledge (intellectual property) acquired in the course of the project.

Networking

additional skills (i.e. project management, drafting of project proposals, language courses, ethics, IPR, CV writing, job search, interview skills, etc).

consider wider disciplines and all potential research environments (academic/industrial).

“hands on” experience.

→ future employment prospects

Training

Dissemination

attendance at international conferences and workshops

organisation of final conference with wider participation or satellite workshop at major conference

dissemination of research undertaken send documentation of success stories to Commission for further dissemination

Ethics

Describe any ethics issues that may arise in the project. In particular, you should explain the benefit and burden of the experiments and the effects it may have on the research subjects.

All funded research must comply with the relevant national and international ethics related rules and professional codes of conduct.

Where necessary, the beneficiary shall provide a written confirmation that (a) favourable opinion(s) of the relevant ethics committee(s) has (have) been received and, if applicable, the regulatory approval(s) of the competent national or local authority(ies), before beginning any research requiring such opinions or approvals.

67

What (not) to expect?

Expect:

Your first attempt will be a failure

Your second attempt may or may not be successful

One day you will succeed!

Do not expect:

Somebody else will do it for you!

Case Study Individual Incoming Fellowship (from 3rd country to UK)

submitted in 2008 (unsuccessful) and 2009 (successful) Criterion 1: Scientific Quality

Issues to be addressed when assigning an overall mark for this criterion: Scientific/technological quality, including any inter-disciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects of the proposal;

Research methodology; Originality and innovative nature of the project, and relationship to the 'state of the art' of research in the field; Timeliness and relevance of the project; Host scientific expertise in the field; Quality of the group/researchers in charge

2008: Solid phase hydrosilylation conditions are not defined.

It is not clearly defined how the synthesized products would be characterized. The novel materials that are claimed to be the outcome of the proposed project are too vaguely defined.

2009: no weaknesses!69

Case Study (cont.)

Criterion 2: Transfer of knowledge

Issues to be addressed when assigning an overall mark for this criterion:

Potential of transferring knowledge to European host and/or bring knowledge to Europe; Clarity and quality of the transfer of knowledge objectives.

2008: The knowledge that the applicant will bring to the host institute has not been sufficiently defined.

2009: no weaknesses!

70

Case Study (cont.)

Criterion 3: Quality of the researcher Issues to be addressed when assigning an overall mark for

this criterion: Research experience; Research results including patents, publications, teaching etc.; Independent thinking and leadership qualities, and capacity to transfer knowledge; Match between the fellow's profile and project

2008: The fellow has a relatively modest publication activity. No publications in high impact journals have been presented. It is therefore difficult to judge the quality of the applicant's research from the information provided. It is not clear from the project description what characterization techniques the fellow used in her previous investigations.

2009: no weaknesses!71

Case Study (cont.)

Criterion 4: Implementation Issues to be addressed when assigning an overall mark for

this criterion: Quality of infrastructure / facilities and inter-national collaborations of host; Practical arrangements for the implementation and management of the scientific project; Feasibility and credibility of the project, including work plan; Practical and administrative arrangements, and support for the hosting of the fellow.

2008: Training on new research equipment has not been sufficiently discussed.


72

Case Study (cont.) Criterion 5: Impact Issues to be addressed when assigning an overall mark for this

criterion: Potential for creating long term collaborations and mutually beneficial co-operation between Europe and the third country; Contribution to European excellence and European Competitiveness; Contribution to the socio-economic development of the Developing Countries or emerging and transition economies by transfer of knowledge and human capacity building (where relevant); Benefit of the mobility to the European research area

2008: In the case of negative results the contribution to European excellence and European competitiveness will be low. There is no risk analysis.


73

Case Study (cont.)

Overall comments: 2008: The overall impact of this project, if

successful in all aspects, would be high, with pronounced contribution to the European excellence and European Competitiveness in an important scientific field. However, the associated risks have not been properly treated in the proposal.

2009: no comments!

74

Case Study (cont.)

Score 2008 2009S&T quality (3) 4 4.8

Transfer of knowledge (0) 3.8 4.8

Quality of the researcher (4) 3.5 4.9

Implementation (0) 4.6 4.9

Impact (0) 4.2 4.6

Total: 78.6 96.0

(in brackets – threshold mark) (failed) (awarded)

75

MES of Kazakhstan August 2014 Call Evaluation form and criteria

76

* Total sum of criteria score does not include the score of the level of English

MES of Kazakhstan - May 2012 CallEvaluation form and criteria (cont.)

77

**Please, evaluate separately from the Total sum.

Overall assessment (1-9):

Expert___________________________

(signature)

**Level of English language of presented proposal(s)

Some statistics from May 2012 Call

Science

78

Priority theme Number of

proposals

Highest score

Lowest score

Score below which no proposal has been funded

(highest score not awarded)Energy 114 49.00 15.67 24.00 (N4 - 48.00)Life Science 250 48.67 14.33 26.00 (N4 - 45.33)IT 112 47.00 17.00 31.55 (N4 - 45.33)Processing of Raw Materials

253 48.67 07.67 38.67 (N3 - 47.67)

Intellectual Potential

1048 50.67 08.67 33.33 (N34 - 45.67)

Some statistics from May 2012 CallInnovation

79

Priority theme

Number of proposals

Highest score

Lowest score

Score below which no proposal has been funded

Energy 5 49.00 35.00 One proposal with the score 44.33 not funded

Life Science 34 55.67 28.33 The highest score not funded is 53

IT 21 44.00 28.00 The highest score not funded is 43

Processing of Raw Materials

20 49.00 30.00 The highest score not funded is 48.67

Possible reasons for rejection

Финансирование нецелесообразно, так как нет научной новизны в конструктивном решении XXX. Ожидаемые результаты не убедительны, так как завышен эффект от снижения энергопотребления и эксплуатационных затрат. Сравнение показателей предлагаемого XXX ведется не с современными аналогами, а с устаревшей системой.

80

Possible reasons for rejection (cont.)

Проект недостаточно разработан. Отсутствие научной новизны и перспективности использования. Ожидаемые результаты не являются научными в области информационных технологий, а носят организационный характер. Статья расходов не обоснована и не расшифрована.

81


Несмотря на то, что тематика проекта направлена на решение актуальных инженерных проблем, он не содержит научной составляющей и тем более научной новизны. Цели и задачи проекта направлены на разработку инструментария для управления инженерной инфраструктурой топологически распределенных предприятий. Такие задачи решаются для крупных предприятий РФ с 2008 г. , в частности на технологической платформе ArcGIS.

82


Отсутствует научная новизна. Указанный в цели проекта «инновационный метод» не имеет под собой серьезную научно-обоснованную базу. Не поставлены задачи реализации цели. Проект не имеет научной и практической значимости. В разделе «методы исследования» не указан ни один из современных методов и программных пакетов обработки спутниковой информации.

83


Проект недостаточно разработан. Научная новизна исследования и ожидаемых результатов не просматриваются. Отсутствие конкретной методологии разработки соответствующих стендов.

Несоответствие приоритету "Информационные и телекоммуникационные технологии". Проект относится к разделу фундаментальных исследований по изучению физических процессов.

84


Дублирование. Проект является частью НИР, выполняемого по бюджетной программе 055 на 2011-2013 гг.

Проект недостаточно разработан. Отсутствие научной новизы. Нет описания методологии, применяемой для научных иследований. Запрашиваемый объем финансирования не обоснован.

85


Проект носит коммерческий характер и не предусмотрены научно-исследовательские работы.

Несмотря на высокие баллы , полученные авторами проекта, зарубежные эксперты указывают на отсутствие ясности при выборе методов исследования. Проект находится на ранней стадии исследования. Данный проект является вторым по счету, поданным на конкурс XXX.

86


Новизна отсутствует. Практическая реализуемость не обоснована. Проект ранее финансировался МОН РК (2001-2006) и исследования проведены в других НИО.

Проект не является инновационным. Промышленный регламент получения XXX является традиционным и разработан достаточно давно.

87


Проект содержит как минимум 4 самостоятельных направления. Однако, эти работы не обеспечены собственными кадрами и материально-технической базой. Отсутствует инновационность.

Проект не обладает новизной, практической значимостью. Софинансирование проекта отсутствует. Авторы не владеют технологией, методикой выполнения проекта.

88


Инновационности нет и не является инновационно-привлекательным. Подобная работа уже проводится по НТП "Разработка отечественных геномно-протеомных технологий для медицины, сельского хозяйства" по НТП на 2012-2014 гг.

Проект не соответствует приоритету. Проект - не инновационный, только в

названии звучит "инновационные технологии в XXX"

89

Some observations from 2011 and 2012 evaluation of MES Calls

The aim of this project is a development of fundamental scientific principles of the obtaining of nanocomposite materials based on metal nanoparticles stabilized with polymeric matrices, a study of their structure, mechanisms of formation and electrocatalytic activity in the processes of hydrogenation of organic compounds, as well as nanocomposites from liquid crystal compounds and carbon nanotubes and a study of their structural features and physicochemical properties.

Your comments, please!

90

The same text in Russian

Целью данного проекта является разработка фундаментальных научных основ получения нано-композиционных материалов на основе наночастиц металлов, стабилизированных полимерными матрицами, изучение их строения, механизмов формирования и электрокаталитической активности в процессах гидрирования органических соединений, а также нанокомпозитов жидкокристаллических соединений и углеродных нанотрубок и изучение их структурных особенностей и физико-химических свойств.

91

Analysis of the previous slide

Too verbous; difficult to measure, it is a mixture of aim and objectives, unclear what is this for?

Actually, I gave it 7 out of 9 in S&T criterion!

92

Expected results

Not quantifiable parameters; ‘Designed magnetic nanotechnology will

enable a new way to solve many scientific-technical and medico-biological problems’.

93

Expected resultsБудет разработана технология нанесения отдельных пленок Ag, Cu, также пленок содержащих оба этих металла, что расширит диапазон практического применения бактерицидных изделий. По этим технологиям будут выданы исходные данныe по проектам получения бактерицидных изделия бытового и медицинского назначения, а также документации по эксплутационным характе-ристикам этих изделий. Практическая значимость заключается также в том, что в предлагаемых технологиях используется отно-сительно дешевая стандартная аппаратура. Это будет способство-вать ее применению на предприятиях малого и среднего бизнеса.

Научная значимость результатов исследования заключается в том, что для получения пленок используется низкотемпературная реакция восстановления в газовой фазе. Причем восстанавливае-мые соединения могут находиться как в растворе, так и в твердой фазе. Благодаря этому можно добиться образования пленки и на внешней поверхности изделия и на внутренних поверхностях отдельных пор. Это позволяет добиться хорошей адгезии получаемых пленок. Кроме того это создает предпосылки для применения этого процесса в других технологиях.

94

Expected results - comments

The expected results are described vaguely; not clear what products will be developed and why the products developed will be better than those existing on the market. There are no target properties given for the products.

Not a single quantitative parameter is mentioned!

95

Expected results

При реализации проекта будет разработана технология глубокой очистки сточных вод из тяжелых металлов, исследованы физико-химические свойства полимерных сорбентов, будет выбран лучший комплексон для образования устойчивых соединений с катионами металлов и осуществлен процесс десорбции.

Конкурентоспособность заключается в экологическом и экономическом подходе при решении технологических задач.

96

Comments

No target or expected quantitative parameters of the sorbent performance or sorption technology have been presented. There is no assessment of environmental or economic benefits of the proposed technological solution.

97

Expected results

4.Ожидаемые результаты (практическая и научная значимость результатов выполняемого научного исследования, их инновационное и конкурентное преимущество) разработка лабораторного регламента получения инъекционных форм нанокапсулированных препаратов, написание фармакопейной статьи.

98

Expected results (comments)

It is hard to write 50 words, if the applicants themselves wrote only 12 in this part of the proposal. Most importantly, the applicants do not consider potential toxicity of nanoparticles, which casts serious doubts on the validity of the proposed work.

99

Infrastructure

Некоторые медико-биологические испытания полимерных наночастиц, иммобилизованных лекарством, могут быть проведены в рамках имеющихся договоров о научном сотрудничестве на базе Института фармацевтической технологии Университета им. Гете (Германия) и АО МНПХ «Фитохимия» МОН РК.

100

Infrastructure (comments)

This aspect of the proposal is absent.

101

InfrastructureОдним из важнейших приборов, который будет использоваться в заявляемых научных исследованиях, является Спектрометр Ядерного магнитного резонанса Bruker AVANCE III 500, 2008 года выпуска.

Многофункциональный спектрометр со сверхпроводящим магнитом, работающий в импульсном режиме с преобразованием Фурье. Спектрометр "AVANCE AV 500" позволяет производить съемку спектров ЯМР в растворах, гелеобразных и твердых порошкообразных органических веществах на ядрах 1Н (500 МГц), 13С (125.69 МГц)13С, 14N, 15N, 19F, 29Si, 31P и далее (приставка CP/MAS; мощность подавления по протонам 300 кВт). Спектрометр снабжен температурной приставкой, работает в режиме внутренней стабилизации по линии резонанса 2Н. Чувствительность на ядрах 1Н составляет 200 : 1 для 0.1 % раствора этилбензола. Разрешающая способность 0.2 Гц при использовании ампул диаметром 5 мм (1Н). Может быть использован при проведении современных двумерных ЯМР экспериментов (COSY, HSQC, HNQC, NOESY, ROESY– модификации). Режим HR-MAS позволяет проводить эксперименты и вязких средах, в тканях и других родственных системах живых организмов, а подход CP-MAS – эксперименты в монокристаллах и порошках. Наиболее эффективная область приложений спектрометра – исследования в области приоритетных направлений «Индустрия наносистем и материалы», «Живые системы».

102

Research facilities Проект будет выполнен силами сотрудников с использованием собственного оборудования. Нормативно-методическая обеспе-ченность будет осуществляться отделом метрологии и стандар-тизации. Патентно-лицензионная сторона проекта будут обеспе-чиваться патентным отделом, который функционирует в составе научно-исследовательского отдела, а также образовательно-ин-формационным отделом, подключенного к Интернету. Приборы, используемые в выполнении эксперимента, прошли метрологичеc-кую проверку, аттестацию и аккредитацию. Исследования физико-химических свойств продуктов будут проводиться в аккредитованном испытательном центре XXX. Имеются 3 специа-лизированные лаборатории площадью более 200 м2 с подведен-ными коммуникациями. Лаборатории оснащены основным и вспо-могательным оборудованием для проведения исследований. Опытно-промышленная база для выпуска опытной партии про-дукта может быть создана в проблемной лаборатории, материаль-но-техническая оснащенность и производственные площади которой позволяют разместить все технологические линии.103

Infrastructure - comment The team is well equipped with modern or

working equipment and instruments, although most of the items presented in the table will be unnecessary for the proposed work. A significant part of the description of the research facilities is simply a copy of the NMR spectrometer specification and general knowledge above the use of NMR method. Unlimited lifetime is an exaggeration as it depends on the availability of spare parts, which may be problematic for equipment made in 1980-1990s.104

Research facilities - comments

The description of the available equipment is inadequate; some new equipment is planned for acquisition.

there is no description of the required manpower and skills.

105

References1. Обзор рынка редкоземельных элементов в СНГ. - М.: Инфомайн. 2008. - 101 с.

2. Михайличенко А.И., Михлин Е.Б., Патрикеев Ю.Б. Редкоземельные металлы. М.: Металлургия. 1987. 232 с.

3. Серебренников В.В. Химия редкоземельных элементов. - Томск.: Томский государственный университет. 1959. Т. 1. 521 с; 1961. Т.2. 802 с.

4. Химия редких элементов. Соединения редкоземель-ных элементов. Под ред. И.В. Тананаева. – М.: Наука, 1983. – 392 с.

5. Бюллетень иностранной коммерческой информации. 2007. №120

6. Информационные сообщения Гиредмет по материалам Industrial Minerals. 2002. April. С. 52-61.

106

References - Comments

Very basic, mostly in Russian and most out-of-date. Only one reference to an original publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The more recent references are to commercial reports rather than scientific or patent literature.

107

Common errors Lack of details in describing methodology; Generic words instead of concrete

examples; Inadequate description of the state of the

art: old references (only in Russian); absence of the patent and market analysis;

Vague description of innovation and originality of the proposal.

Poor quality of English translation – do NOT rely on Google translation!

108

Patent and literature search could help a lot!

US Patent and Trademark Office http://patft.uspto.gov/ - full patent search

Google patent search - www.google.com/patents - US patents

European Patent Office search - http://worldwide.espacenet.com/ - patents all over the world

Scopus, Web of Science, Wiley, Elsevier, Springer, etc.

109

There is always somewhere funding waiting for you and your idea(s).

You can do it

If not you – who else?

Questions?

GOOD LUCK!

Conclusions

PROPOSAL WRITING AND EVALUATION: Guidance for applicants and evaluators for Calls in Horizon2020...

Documents

Transcript of PROPOSAL WRITING AND EVALUATION: Guidance for applicants and evaluators for Calls in Horizon2020...