Exploration projects - Evaluation form | Belgian Platform on Earth Observation

Before completing this form, please create an account to access the "Save draft" function.

Once your account has been activated by the STEREO team, you will receive a confirmation email.

All fields are mandatory.

Acronym of the proposal

Name of the coordinator / promotor of the proposal

Name of the evaluator

Last name

First name

I, the undersigned, commit myself to strict confidentiality and impartiality concerning my tasks. I declare that I will not use nor communicate any information relating to the research project(s) and the content of the evaluation process.

I declare that I am not directly or indirectly involved, in any proposal submitted for evaluation under the "STEREO IV - Support to the Exploitation and Research of Earth Observation data" third call for proposals.

To be submitted by Friday 21 June 2024

This form is designed for the evaluation of proposals submitted for the programme "STEREO IV” (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.
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).
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.
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

1.1. Does remote sensing play an essential role in the proposed research?

Yes

If not, comment

1.2. Does the proposal qualify as an exploration project (as defined in § 2.10, page 12 of the information file)?

Yes

If not, comment

1.3. Is the proposal compliant with the programme goal (as defined in § 2.2, page 6 of the information file) and with the modalities of the call for proposals (as defined in § 3.1 and 4.1, page 16 of the information file)?

Yes

If not, comment

2. Scientific quality of the proposal

2.1. Is the proposed research original and innovative? (Section II of the proposal: research topic - objectives- methodology)

Comment

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)

Comment

2.3. Are the objectives and tasks clearly defined and coherent? (Section II of the proposal: objectives - overview of work packages)

Comment

2.4. Is the research methodology well-chosen and clearly defined? (Section II of the proposal: methodology)

Comment

2.5. Does the proposal have a sound approach to validate the research results? (Section II of the proposal: planned exploitation activities)

Comment

General conclusion about the scientific quality

Comments

3. Feasibility of the proposal

3.1. Are the resources foreseen for the project adequate (budget, staff, equipment, images, time)? (Section II of the proposal: data requirements, budget, financial contribution of international partner)

(While the cost of satellite is borne by the programme, UAV acquisitions must be budgeted within the project)

Comments

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)

Comments

3.3. Are the different work packages interconnected in a logical and feasible way?

Comments

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 - last page of the proposal)

Comments

General conclusion about the feasability

Comments

4. Assessment of planned exploitation activities

4.1. Does the proposal guarantee sufficient visibility to the research?

Comments

4.2. Does the work planning and resource distribution allow for the timely production of papers and for web publishing?

Comments

4.3. Does the work planning and resource distribution allow for presenting the work at relevant workshops and conferences?

Comments

General conclusion of the planned exploitation activities

Comments

5. Quality of the partnership / promotor

(Section I of the proposal: Applicant information)

5.1. Does each partner have the necessary competences to bring his work packages to fruition and to carry out the project?

Comments

5.2. Has each partner a sufficient calibre as evidenced by publications, international collaborations...?

Comments

5.3. Does the proposed research strengthen the existing expertise of the partners involved?

Comments

5.4. Is the partnership balanced? Are the skills of the partners complementary? Are all partners necessary? (not applicable in the case of a proposal submitted by a single promotor)

Comments

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? ? (not applicable in the case of a proposal submitted by a single promotor)

Comments

5.6. Does the international partner provide a real added value to the partnership? ? (in case of integration of a non-Belgian partner in the partnership)

Comments

General conclusion of the quality of the partnership

General conclusion of the quality of the partnership / promotor

Comments

6. General assessment of the project

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

Overall rating

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

Strengths

Weaknesses

6.3. Recommendation for the programme managers

Reject

Approve

6.4. Suggest any possible changes to the proposal that in your view would improve its quality

Exploration projects - Evaluation form

Research programme for Earth Observation STEREO IV

All fields are mandatory.

1. Compliance with the requested proposal profile

2. Scientific quality of the proposal

3. Feasibility of the proposal

4. Assessment of planned exploitation activities

5. Quality of the partnership / promotor

6. General assessment of the project