1. EVALUATION Prof.Dr.Şakire Pöğün Ege Ün. Tıp Fakültesi (expert evaluator) Intra-European (IEF) International Outgoing (OIF) Fellowships International Incoming(IIF) International Re-integration Grants TÜBİTAK 15 / 12 / 2003

2. Individual driven actions Outgoing Fellowships World-wide up to 2 years outside Europe + up to 1 year return phase Incoming Fellowships World-wide Return phase possible if from emerging, transition or developing country Intra-European Fellowships Return and Reintegration Mechanisms

4. Marie Curie Outgoing International Fellowships Researchers from EU and Associated States –Minimum 4 years experience or doctorate –Joint proposal by fellow and host institution To Third Countries Coherent project up to 3 years with 2 phases: –experience outside Europe up to 2 years and –obligatory return to Europe, typically half the duration of the 1st. phase  “valorisation” in Europe of experience gained  reinforce relations between EU and third countries

5. Marie Curie Incoming International Fellowships High level third country researchers –Minimum 4 years experience or doctorate –Joint proposal by fellow and host institution Towards Europe Return mechanism for researchers –from developing countries –from emerging and transition economies  reinforce the research potential of these countries  strengthen relations between the EU and third countries

6. Marie Curie Return and Reintegration of European Researchers having undertaken research outside Europe during at least 5 years Precise project evaluated on its intrinsic merits Up to 2 years funding for a 3 year contract –Research project (via host institution) Compensate partly for the brain drain

7. Calendar & Budget for 2003

8. Eligible Expenses

9. Eligible expenses (IRG) Max: 80 000 Euros/year All expenditure necessary for the project (On the basis of the reintegration project submitted by the proposer and approved by the commission) Personnel other than the eligible researcher, equipment, consumables, travel, etc.

10. Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships Aims To provide advanced training tailored to the researchers individual needs in order to become independent.

11. Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships Who can Apply  Experienced researchers;  Mobility required;  EU or Associated States Nationals.  No age limits

12. Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships Profile of the host institutions  Universities, research centres, or enterprises established and located in an EU or Associated State.

13. Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships How does it work  The applicant applies to the Commission jointly with the host institution;  Commission selects the applicant and signs a contract with the host;  Selected fellow signs an agreement with the host;  Fellow stays from 1 to 2 years.

14. Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships Indicative scope of activity For each 100 M €, this action should allow:  Conclusion of 750 contracts, involving 750 host organisations  Selection of 1400 researchers/year The size of the projects will vary between 60 000 and 180 000 €

15. Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships Provisional Timetable Envisaged date of publication: 17 December 2002 Envisaged Deadlines : one open call with 2 deadlines : March/April 2003 (~ 55 M€) February 2004 (~ 55 M€)

16. PROPOSAL Ranking by Commision Commision rejection decision NEGOTIATION Eligibility Consensus Individual evaluation Thresholds Hearings Panel Ethical issues

17. NEGOTIATION Negotiation result Consultation of Programme Committee Commission Funding Decision and/or Rejection Decision

18. Proposal marking 0 - The proposal fails to address the issue under examination or cannot be judged against the criterion due to missing or incomplete information 1 – poor 2 – fair 3 – good 4 – very good 5 – excellent

19. Activity Specific Evaluation Criteria a)Scientific & technological excellence and the degree of innovation Scientific Quality of the Project Quality of Research Training b)Ability to carry out successfully and to ensure its efficient management, assessed in terms of resources and competencies and including the organizational modalities foreseen by the participants Quality of Host Quality of Researchers

20. Activity Specific Evaluation Criteria c)Relevance to the objectives of the specific programme (Scheme / Activity) d)EU added value, critical mass of resources and contribution to Community policies e)Quality of the plan for using or disseminating the knowledge, potential for promoting innovation, and clear plans for the management of intellectual property

21. Criterion (a): Scientific Quality of the Project IEF/ OIF / IIF Scientific/ technological quality of the project Is the scientific content of the project important and relevant Originality/innovative aspects Assessment of the research method Assessment of the interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects of the proposal Does the proposal describe the state of the art for the scientific area and the relevance of the project Weight:%15 Threshold:--

22. IRG Scientific/ technological quality of the project Is the scientific content of the project important and relevant Assessment of the research method Assessment of the originality and innovative nature of the project or training area Weight:%15 Threshold:-- Criterion (a): Scientific Quality of the Project

23. Criterion (a): Quality of Research Training IEF/ OIF / IIF Clarity and quality of the research training objectives for the researchers Complementary training and skills offered Weight:%15 Threshold:3

24. Criterion (a): Quality of Research Training IRG Clarity and quality of the research training objectives for the researchers Complementary training and skills offered Weight:%15 Threshold:3

25. Criterion b): Quality of Host IEF/ OIF / IIF Scientific expertise in the field Quality of the group/supervisors Expertise in training researchers in the field and their capacity to provide mentoring/tutoring International collaborations Quality of infrastructure / facilities Weight:%15 Threshold:--

26. IRG Scientific expertise in the field Quality of infrastructure / Facilities Expertise in training researchers in the field and their capacity to provide mentoring/tutoring; Quality of the group/supervisors International collaborations Weight:%15 Threshold:-- Criterion b): Quality of Host

27. IEF/ OIF / IIF Research experience, Research results; independent thinking and leadership qualities Potential for the development of the researchers Suitability of skills for the project proposed Weight:%15 Threshold:4 Criterion b): Quality of Researchers REFERENCE LETTERS REFERENCE LETTERS!

28. IRG Research experience Research results Independent thinking and leadership qualities Adequacy of skills for the project proposed Weight:%15 Threshold:4 Criterion b): Quality of Researchers REFERENCE LETTERS REFERENCE LETTERS!

29. Criterion (b): Management and Feasibility IEF/ OIF / IIF Ability to carry out the action successfully and to ensure its efficient management, assessed in terms of resources and competencies and incl. the organizational modalities foreseen by the participants Practical arrangements for the implementation and management of the fellowship Feasibility and credibility of the project methodological approach to the project and work plan Weight:%5 Threshold:--

30. Criterion (b): Management and Feasibility IRG Practical arrangements for the implementation and management of the fellowship Feasibility and credibility of the project Methodological approach to the project and work plan Weight:%5 Threshold:-- Paid position Paid position!

31. Criterion (c): Relevance to the objectives of the specific programme (Scheme / Activity) IEF/ OIF / IIF Benefit to the researchers from the period of advanced training/mobility Match between project and researcher’s profile Likeliness for the researchers to pursue the line of research after end of fellowship Capacity of the fellowship to enhance EU scientific excellence (where appropriate) For incoming fellowships: Contributing to the socioeconomic development of DCs by the transfer of knowledge and human capacity building (where appropriate) Weight:IEF %25; OIF & IIF%15 Threshold:--

32. Criterion (c): Relevance to the objectives of the specific programme (Scheme / Activity) IRG Benefit to the career of the researchers from the training/period of re-integration Match between project and researcher profile Contribution to scientific excellence by attracting a first class confirmed EU researcher Prospects of successful re-integration within the framework of European Research Weight:%15 Threshold:3

33. Criterion (c): Added Value to the Community IEF/ OIF / IIF Extent to which the proposed fellowship contributes towards the objectives of the European Research Area Benefit of mobility through the transfer of knowledge and improved collaborations through the mobile researchers Contribution to research excellence and European competitiveness For international fellowships Potential for creating long term collaborations Potential for improving the gender balance in the scientific/training area Weight:IEF %10; OIF & IIF%20 Threshold:--

34. Criterion (c): Added Value to the Community IRG Extent to which the proposed fellowship contributes towards the objectives of the European Research Area Contribution to the reversal of brain drain to and recuperation of expertise from third countries Weight:%10 Threshold:--

35. Consensus Report 1.Scientific quality of the project 2.Quality of the training activities 3.Quality of the host 4.Quality of the researcher 5.Management and feasibility 6.Relevance to the objectives of the activity 7.Added value to the Community Overall remarks (highlighting strengths and weaknesses)

36. Consensus Report (YES or NO & Comments) Does this proposal have ethical issues that need further attention? Do you recommend this proposal to be reviewed by the Ethical Review Panel? Has ethical approval from the country in which the research will take place been supplied in the proposal? Is the research described in the proposal laboratory based? Do you make any recommendadtions to be into account at negotiation? Have you suggested indicators to be used to monitor the implementation of the proposal, if funded?

37. Has the proposal passed all evaluation thresholds? (YES or NO) Evaluator names Criteria1234567 Total Score Threshold Evaluator signaturesNon-wieghted marks (0-5) Commission Representative’s signature Initial averages Consensus marks Weighing % Weighed score Total expressed out of 100