Acronym of the proposal *
Name of the coordinator / promotor of the proposal *
Last name *
First name *
Email *
1. Compliance with the requested proposal profile
1.2. Does the proposal qualify as an exploration project (as defined in § 2.11, page 26 of the information file)? *
1.3. Is the proposal compliant with the programme goal (as defined in § 2.3, page 6 of the information file) and with the modalities of the call for proposals (as defined in § 3.1 and 4.1, page 15 of the information file)? *
2. Scientific quality of the proposal
2.1. Is the proposed research original and innovative? (Section II of the proposal: research topic - objectives- methodology) *
- Select - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
2.2. Is the proposed research likely to contribute to the international state-of-the-art in the area of research? (Section II of the proposal: research topic - objectives - methodology) *
- Select - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
2.3. Are the objectives and tasks clearly defined and coherent? (Section II of the proposal: objectives - overview of work packages) *
- Select - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
2.4. Is the research methodology well-chosen and clearly defined? (Section II of the proposal: methodology) *
- Select - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
2.5. Does the proposal have a sound approach to validate the research results? (Section II of the proposal: planned exploitation activities) *
- Select - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
General conclusion about the scientific quality *
- Select - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
3. Feasibility of the proposal
3.2. Is the distribution of resources (between partners and work packages) well balanced? (Section II of the proposal: overview of the work packages, budget [optional: only in case of partnership]) *
- Select - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
3.3. Are the different work packages interconnected in a logical and feasible way? *
- Select - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
3.4. Are the possible weaknesses and threats well understood by the applicants and is a mitigation strategy foreseen? (Section II of the proposal: SWOT analysis) *
- Select - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
General conclusion about the feasability *
- Select - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
4. Assessment of planned exploitation activities
4.1. Does the proposal guarantee sufficient visibility to the research? *
- Select - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
4.2. Does the work planning and resource distribution allow for the timely production of papers and for web publishing? *
- Select - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
4.3. Does the work planning and resource distribution allow for presenting the work at relevant workshops and conferences? *
- Select - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
General conclusion of the planned exploitation activities *
- Select - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
5. Quality of the partnership (if applicable) or the promotor (Section I)
5.1. Does each partner/ the promotor have the necessary competences to bring his work packages to fruition and to carry out the project?
- None - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
5.2. Has each partner a sufficient calibre as evidenced by publications, international collaborations...?
- None - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
5.3. Does the proposed research strengthen the existing expertise of the partners/promotor involved?
- None - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
5.4. Is the partnership balanced? Are the skills of the partners complementary? Are all partners necessary? (if applicable)
- None - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
5.5. Does the partnership provide added value with regard to the proposed project’s chances of succeeding as compared with the individual efforts of the partners? (if applicable)
- None - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
5.6. Does the international partner(s) provide a real added value to the partnership? (if applicable)
- None - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
General conclusion of the quality of the partnership / promotor *
- Select - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
Overall rating *
- Select - 5 - excellent 4 - good 3 - average 2 - poor 1 - very poor
6.1. Overall assessment of the project (quality of the scientific research, feasibility, partnership and exploitation)
6.2. Give the project’s main strengths and weaknesses in descending order of importance
6.4. Suggest any possible changes to the proposal that in your view would improve its quality