Exploration projects - Evaluation form

You are here

Research programme for Earth Observation STEREO III

(Support To Exploitation and Research in Earth Observation)

It is possible to complete this form in several stages by using the "Save draft" button located at the bottom of this page.

Name of the evaluator

  1. This form is designed for the evaluation of proposals submitted for the programme "STEREO III” (Support to the Exploitation and Research in Earth Observation).
    Each proposal will be evaluated by four external independent evaluators by means of a written procedure.
     
  2. The quality of the proposal will be measured against the different evaluation criteria which are mentioned in the “Information package” (see § 5.2. Assessment and selection).
     
  3. The evaluators are asked to answer carefully the different questions in the form and tick, where appropriate, YES or NO, or rate the quality on the following scale from 1 to 5:

    5 excellent
    4 good
    3 average
    2 poor
    1 very poor

    In addition, it is required to comment your marks. (The “comments” fields will expand automatically).
    Your marks as well as your written comments will be used in the selection procedure.
     
  4. All evaluations will be treated confidentially. We guarantee anonymity when presenting the results of the evaluation to the applicants.

1. Compliance with the requested proposal profile 

2. Scientific quality of the proposal

General conclusion about the scientific quality

3. Feasibility of the proposal

(While the cost of satellite and APEX airborne images are borne by the programme, UAV acquisitions must be budgeted within the project)

General conclusion about the feasability

4. Assessment of planned exploitation activities

General conclusion of the planned exploitation activities

5. Quality of the partnership (if applicable) or the promotor

General conclusion of the quality of the partnership

6. General assessment of the project

This assessment should provide a balanced summary of your opinions and judgements expressed above.

6.2. Give the project’s main strengths and weaknesses in descending order of importance