Mikel Emaldi. Tecnalia - Infoday Horizon 2020: Marie Sklodowska-Curie


Published on

Experiencia de un evaluador en acciones Marie Curie, Mikel Emaldi- TECNALIA
El proceso de evaluación en H2020 - MSCA

Published in: Science, Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mikel Emaldi. Tecnalia - Infoday Horizon 2020: Marie Sklodowska-Curie

  1. 1. El proceso de evaluación en H2020 – MSCA Zamudio, 2014-06-03 Marie Sklodowska-Curie ekintzen informazio jardunaldia Euskadin
  2. 2. 3 El proceso de evaluación (I) Horizon 2020 Grants Manual – Section on proposal submission and evaluation, v1.0 11/dec/2013
  3. 3. 4 El proceso de evaluación (II) May be remote C R
  4. 4. 5 Las puntuaciones En algunas convocatorias se admiten “medios puntos” o incluso décimas
  5. 5. 6 Evaluación en MCSA – H2020 Excellence Impact Implementation Weight in Evaluation 50% 30% 20% Priority in case of ex-aequo 1 2 3 En casi todas las convocatorias MCSA Each criterion will be scored from 0 to 5. The total score will be subject to a threshold of 70% (10,5/15) Ref. HORIZON 2020 WORK PROGRAMME 2014 – 2015 3. Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
  6. 6. We will be guided by: • Excellence. Projects must demonstrate high quality in relation to 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. • Fairness and impartiality. All proposals submitted in response to a call are treated equally and evaluated impartially on their merits, irrespective of their origin or the identity of the applicants. • Efficiency and speed. Evaluation, award and grant preparation should be done as quickly as possible without compromising quality or neglecting the rules. 7 Criterios en la evaluación de propuestas
  7. 7. 8 Evaluator Briefing.pdf General Briefing for Evaluators (pdf presentation): Criterios en la evaluación de propuestas – FP7
  8. 8. The EC appoints independent evaluators for each call from the DB of experts. We look for: • a high level of skill, experience and knowledge in the relevant areas; • provided the above condition can be satisfied, a balance in terms of: – skills, experience and knowledge; – geographical diversity; – gender; – where appropriate, the private and public sectors, – an appropriate renovation from year to year. • In principle, your proposal will be examined by three experts 9 Selección de Evaluadores En la práctica, sí se trata de expertos pero no siempre en exactamente el tema de la propuesta concreta
  9. 9. Contractualmente obligatorio: • Confidential • Avoid / declare Conflicts of Interest – Se detallan mucho en el Contrato entre la CE y el Evaluador. • do not, under any circumstances, contact the applicant/ referees/ middle-parties/ etc. • Return / erase confidential documents 10 Para los Evaluadores
  10. 10. • Write your comments using full and clear sentences for each criterion; • Avoid summarising the proposal. The proposer knows what the proposal is about; • Structure your report using strong and weak points based on the given sub-criteria; • Everything you write must be briefly justified. Therefore do not use general statements such as: “The research could have been better described”; • Avoid generalisations “Country/Lab X is weak in this area!!” If it is necessary to make a comment like this say rather, e.g. “It has not been demonstrated in the proposal that the host has the capacity to run this project”; 11 "Do's and Don'ts" for a good IER (1)
  11. 11. • Do not assume or anticipate the quality of an institution (even prestigious): it must be clearly detailed and demonstrated in the proposal: The individual laboratory should also be carefully assessed- the rating of the organisation and the host laboratory can be very different. Stick to only what is stated and justified in the proposal; • Above all, do not make personal and defamatory comments; • Check the consistency of scores and comments; Examples of statements to avoid: “very good candidate” and then allocating a mark of 3.9, i.e. a rejection (because of a threshold of 4 for the 'researcher' criterion); 12 "Do's and Don'ts" for a good IER (2)
  12. 12. 13 Panel Review • A list of proposals passing all thresholds, along with a final score for each proposal passing the thresholds and the panel recommendations for priority order; • A list of evaluated proposals having failed one or more thresholds; • A list of any proposals having been found ineligible during the evaluation; • A record of the hearings (if applicable) Outcome of panel review Comission Ranked List NOTA: la CE NO participa en la Evaluación. Los Officers pueden actuar de Moderadores o facilitadores de consenso, pero no opinan
  13. 13. • IMPACT es importante, incluso en Marie Curie. A menudo se obvia, o se trabaja poco. • La competencia es dura. Hay CVs/Proyectos muy buenos que no se financian porque los hay mejores. • Quizá en COFUND haya menos competencia. • Sin embargo, se pueden ganar, y de hecho se ganan, estas becas que son muy interesantes desde todos los puntos de vista. 14 Conclusiones
  14. 14. 15 ConclusionesETN-2014
  15. 15. 16 ConclusionesETN-2014
  16. 16. 17 ConclusionesETN-2014
  17. 17. 18 ConclusionesETN-2014
  18. 18. 19 ConclusionesETN-2014
  19. 19. Mila esker. Mikel.Emaldi@tecnalia.com Business Development / Programs