Evaluation procedure
A single submission of the full proposal will be followed by a two-step evaluation. The evaluation will be conducted by means of a structure of high level peer review panels. The panels may be assisted by independent external experts working remotely.
The applicant Principal Investigator can request during the electronic proposal submission that up to three specific persons should not act as an evaluator in the evaluation of their proposal.
At step 1, the extended synopsis and the Principal Investigator's track record and CV will be assessed (and not the full scientific proposal). Proposals will be retained for step 2 based on the outcome of the evaluation at step 1 and a budgetary cut-off level of up to three times the panel's indicative budget.
At step 2 the complete version of the retained proposals will be assessed (including the full scientific proposal).
Evaluation criteria
For all ERC frontier research grants, scientific excellence is the sole criterion of evaluation. It will be applied in conjunction to the evaluation of both: the ground-breaking nature, ambition and feasibility of the research project; and the intellectual capacity, creativity and commitment of the Principal Investigator.
During the evaluation, the phase of the Principal Investigator's transition to independence, possible breaks in the research career of the applicant and/or unconventional research career paths should be taken into account.
In general, projects wholly or largely consisting in the collation and compilation of existing material in new databases, editions or collections are unlikely to constitute ground-breaking or "frontier" research in themselves, however useful such resources might be to subsequent original research. Such projects are therefore unlikely to be recommended for funding by the ERC's panels.
Questions
1. Research Project
Ground-breaking nature,
ambition and feasibility
Ground-breaking nature and potential impact of the research project
- To what extent does the proposed research address important challenges?
- To what extent are the objectives ambitious and beyond the state of the art (e.g. novel concepts and approaches or development between or across disciplines)?
- To what extent is the proposed research high risk/high gain?
Scientific Approach
- To what extent is the outlined scientific approach feasible bearing in mind the extent that the proposed research is high risk/high gain (based on the Extended Synopsis)?
- To what extent are the proposed research methodology and working arrangements appropriate to achieve the goals of the project (based on the full Scientific Proposal)?
- To what extent does the proposal involve the development of novel methodology (based on the full Scientific Proposal)?
- To what extent does the proposal involve the development of novel methodology (based on the full Scientific Proposal)?
2. Principal Investigator
Intellectual capacity,
creativity and commitment
[StG][CoG] Intellectual capacity and creativity
- To what extent has the PI demonstrated the ability to propose and conduct ground-breaking research?
- To what extent does the PI provide evidence of creative independent thinking?
- To what extent does the PI have the required scientific expertise and capacity to successfully execute the project?
[StG][CoG] Commitment
- To what extent does the PI demonstrate the level of commitment to the project necessary for its execution and the willingness to devote a significant amount of time to the project (minimum 50% for Starting and 40% for Consolidator of the total working time) (based on the full Scientific Proposal)?
[AdG] Intellectual capacity and creativity
- To what extent has the PI demonstrated the ability to conduct ground-breaking research?
- To what extent does the PI has/have the required scientific expertise and capacity to successfully execute the project?
- To what extent has the PI demonstrated sound leadership in the training and advancement of young scientists?
Outcome of evaluation
For Starting, Consolidator and Advanced Grants
At each evaluation step, each proposal will be evaluated and marked for each of the two main elements of the proposal: the ground-breaking nature, ambition and feasibility of the research project; and the intellectual capacity, creativity and commitment of the Principal Investigator.
At the end of each evaluation step, the proposals will be ranked by the panels on the basis of the panels' overall appreciation of their strengths and weaknesses taking into account the marks they have received.
At the end of step 1 of the evaluation applicants will be informed that their proposal:
- [A] is of sufficient quality to pass to step 2 of the evaluation;
- [B] is of high quality but not sufficient to pass to step 2 of the evaluation;
- [C] is not of sufficient quality to pass to step 2 of the evaluation.
At the end of step 2 of the evaluation applicants will be informed that their proposal:
- [A] fully meets the ERC's excellence criterion and is recommended for funding if sufficient funds are available;
- [B] meets some but not all elements of the ERC's excellence criterion and will not be funded.
For Synergy Grants
At the end of step 1 of the evaluation applicants will be informed that their proposal:
- [A] is of sufficient quality to pass to step 2 of the evaluation;
- [B] is of high quality but not sufficient to pass to step 2 of the evaluation;
- [C] is not of sufficient quality to pass to step 2 of the evaluation.
At the end of step 2 of the evaluation applicants will be informed that their proposal:
- [A] is of sufficient quality to pass to step 3 of the evaluation;
- [B] is of high quality but not sufficient to pass to step 3 of the evaluation;
At the end of step 3 of the evaluation applicants will be informed that their proposal:
- [A] fully meets the ERC's excellence criterion and is recommended for funding if sufficient funds are available;
- [B] meets some but not all elements of the ERC's excellence criterion and will not be funded.
WITHIN FEW MINUTES, REVIEWERS WANT TO KNOW…
- What is the problem/research challenge?
- Why is this problem important?
- Why was it not solved until now?
- What is your new idea/approach?
- Is this groundbreaking research?
- What are your concrete research objectives?
- Why can you succeed?
EARLY CONSIDERATIONS - EXAMPLES
- What is the core novelty of your project?
- What are the main overarching research questions/ testable hypotheses?
- What are your central research objectives? Are they clear and measurable?
- What is your research vision?
- Which evaluation panel?
- A story, not a checklist
- Gain/Risk-balance?
- How will you validate and interpret your results?
- What are important definitions for your project?
- Theoretical framework?
- Methodology: selection criteria for case studies; statistical power analysis
- Explanatory power: e.g. descriptive vs. experimental; causality vs. correlation