1. Structure of the Application Evaluation Criteria Oskar Otsus January 2013 Moldova

2. 2 parts: Part A – technical information Part B – the scientific part

3. Proposal Part A (online submission): A1: Content Title, acronym, duration, etc. keywords Proposal abstract previous/current submission A2: Participants Administrative data Personal data Organisation Status: SME/Public body/Research centre/Educ. Establishment (Prefilled with the PIC number) Applicant identification code PIC Dependencies A3: Budget A3.1: Individual Partners: RTD/Demo/MANAG/Other & Personel/Subc/Other/Indir costs A3.2: All

4. Proposal Part B (pdf submission): Part B format directly linked to evaluation criteria 1.S&T quality 2.Implementation 3.Impact 4.Ethics 5.Gender aspects 6.Security Sensitive Issues Section lengths recommended

5. Evaluation criteria Evaluation criteria applicable to Collaborative project proposals S/T QUALITY Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the call) IMPLEMENTATION Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management IMPACT Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results – Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives – Progress beyond the state-of- the-art – Quality and effectiveness of the S/T methodology and associated work plan – Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures – Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants – Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance) – Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (staff, equipment …) – Contribution, at the European (and/or international) level, to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic/activity – Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property.

6. State of the Art Describe the state of the art Show clearly, what are the bottlenecks and how you will solve them Goals Clearly phrased and measurable Ambitious enough, but realistic Directly connected to the Work Programme Improving the current situation Methodology Achievable Linked to goals, deliverables and innovation Described in the work plan Includes risk analysis I criteria: Scientific and technological quality

7. Gantt table

8. PERT graph

9. II criteria: implementation Decision making mechanism Roles and responsbilities Information flow in the consortia Conflict solving procedures Quality management IPR issues Project management description Are the parters „world class“? publications etc Does their responsibility meet their skills? Do they have a clear role in the project? Are the roles reasonable? Is the European level feasible? Is the consortium well balanced? Partners

10. Management structure

11. III criteria: Impact 1.Contribution on European level, expected impact 1.Link the impact to the Work Programme 2.Impact has to be ambitious and in the same time achievable 3.Suggestion: read European policy documents 4.Differentiate between short term goals achieved during your project and long term goals achieved after the project 5.Write also about different risks 2. Dissemination plan 3. Connections to stakeholders and the public Use European policy documents! III criteria is often not so important to the researchers, but the most important for the reviewers!

12. Ethics questionnaire Research on human embryo/foetus Research on humans Privacy Research on animals Research involving non-EU countries Dual-use Even if your project doesn’t have any ethical issues, you have to answer the questions!

13. What you don’t write, the reviewer doesn’t know! The project has to adress the call! Ambitious but realistic Create a schedule and organize your work Make your proposal easy to read Oskar Otsus Estonian Research Council tel: +372 7 317 350 e-mail: oskar.otsus@etag.ee