1. Status of the first joint call “Extended Working Life and its Interaction with Health, Wellbeing and beyond” WP 2 of J-Age II Wenke Apt 13th General Assembly Meeting of the JPI MYBL 25 March 2015 Vienna

2. Call topic Invitation of research proposals into one or more of four broad topics:  Modern work factors  Longer working life & Inequality  Health challenges  Caring responsibilities

3. Countries PARTICIPATING FUNDING ORGANISATION COUNTRY TENTATIVE INITIAL FUNDING COMMITMENT (Euros) ENVISAGED NUMBER OF PROJECTS POTENTIALLY FUNDED Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy (BMWFW) AUSTRIA500.000€ 1-5 Belgian Science Policy Office (BELSPO)BELGIUM500.000€ 2 Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)* CANADA530.000€ 3 Innovation Fund Denmark (InnoFond)DENMARK1.000.000€ 2-3 Academy of Finland (AKA)FINLAND900.000€ 2-4 Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) GERMANY1.000.000€ - Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) SPAIN300.000€ 3-5 Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (FORTE) SWEDEN1.200.000€ 2-5 The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) NETHERLANDS400.000€ 2 Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) UNITED KINGDOM £500.000 750.000€ (aprox.) 2-3 TOTAL7.080.000€ minimum budget expected

4. Timeline DATEACTIVITYRESPONSIBLE 1st March 2015Start date of J-AGE II 9 th March 2015 Pre-Announcement of the call at the Summit on Healthy and Active Aging ZonMw 15 th March 2015Deadline for MoU signatures VDI/VDE-IT 1 st April 2015Preliminary list of national peer expertsVDI/VDE-IT 1 st April 2015Launch of the CallVDI/VDE-IT 18 th April 2015Submission tool availableVDI/VDE-IT 2 nd June 2015Closure of the submission CSC members 30th June 2015Deadline for national eligibility checkCSC members 15 th September 2015Preparation of panel meeting documentsVDI/VDE-IT October 2015 Panel meeting of experts/peer-evaluators and representatives from national funding organisations; selection of funding candidates (short list) VDI/VDE-IT First quarter 2016Expected start time of funded projects Fourth quarter 2017Funded projects: Midterm evaluation organized by JCS Fourth quarter 2019Final evaluation of funded projects and status seminar Organized by the JCS VDI/VDE-IT

5. Evaluation procedure S TEP 1 - FORMAL CRITERIA CHECK OF PROPOSALS  Joint Call Secretariat will check all proposals for formal criteria (date of submission; number of participating countries; inclusion of all information in English; appropriate limits on length)  Joint Call Secretariat will forward the proposals to the national funding organizations to perform a formal check for compliance to national rules  Proposals not meeting the formal criteria will be declined for further review  Proposals passing both checks will be forwarded to the Peer Review Panel S TEP 2 - SELECTION OF PROPOSALS BY THE P EER R EVIEW P ANEL Members of the Peer Review Panel will carry out the evaluation using a common evaluation form according to specific evaluation criteria

6. Evaluation criteria Relevance and clarity of objectives in relation to the aims of the call Scientific quality of the proposal (scientific excellence of the proposal in terms of innovative approach, originality and expected progress beyond the state of the art, availability and quality of existing data, comparative perspective and multidisciplinarity) Quality of the project consortium (international competitiveness of participants in the field(s), previous work and expertise of the participants, added value of the transnational collaboration, participation of junior researchers) Feasibility of project plan (relation of work packages to proposal themes and aims, quality of work plan and time schedule, balanced participation of project partners, quality and efficiency of the coordination and management, scientific justification and adequateness of the requested budget and risk assessment) Potential impact on society and citizens (response to actual societal needs, providing evidence for policy makers and practitioners; early integration of relevant stakeholders, ensuring societal relevance over the course of the project and its dissemination)

7. Scoring system  1: Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.  2: Fair While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses.  3: Good The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary.  4: Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible.  5: Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.  Reviewers will score each criterion using this scoring system and will provide comments to justify each score.  They will also provide an overall score to the proposal.  Each proposal will be reviewed by three reviewers.  All reviewers will complete the evaluation form.

8. Review process  Call Steering Committee composed of representatives from funding institutions  It jointly decide on the call text and the composition of the international Joint Peer Review Panel  Call Steering Committee will decide by consensus, however: possible veto right for national representative concerned  Each country represented in the CSC has one vote.  Call Steering Committee will recommend the proposals to be funded (shortlist) following the recommendations of the Peer Review Panel  Each Party will make the final decision according to their respective regulations and available budgets in line with the prioritizations made by the Call Steering Committee.

9. Peer review panel  External, independent and international reviewers that will review joint with the applications according to their expertise. Possible sources of reviewers  Working group 3 “Work and productivity”  Working group “Understanding employment participation” (fast-track)  SAB and SOAB  National contexts and recommendations

10. Funding and eligibility  Eligibility to apply and administrative requirements are subject to national regulations and may therefore vary  Researchers from non-funding countries may participate with own funding  Only transnational projects will be funded: Minimum of three eligible applicants from at least three countries  “Virtual common pot” model: Each country funds its own approved partners with the allocated amount of money  Applications will be assessed and ranked on a shortlist by an international Peer Review Panel on the basis of specific evaluation criteria  Final funding decision by the national respective of the funding bodies

11. Required information in proposals  Project title; Acronym (maximum 15 characters)  Duration of project (months)  Total project cost and budget requested to be publically funded  Type of research group (academia, clinical, industry)  Abstract  Family names, first names and full affiliations  Background and present state of the art in the research field  Work plan including references (e.g. aims, methodology, participants, time plan, work packages, project coordination, innovation, added value of the proposed solution)  Financial summary for each project consortium partner  Added value of the proposed international collaboration  Potential impact, outreach to stakeholders and exploitation of results  Handling of intellectual property rights  Description of ongoing projects, pending patents and patents  Ethical issues of the project proposal  Brief CVs for each participating project partner

12. Review process

14. Thank you!