Scientific review | Assemble+

Scientific review: the selection criteria

Project proposals that passed the feasibility check are evaluated by members of a User Selection Panel (USP). The USP consists of six external experts and six internal ASSEMBLE Plus Project Implementation Committee members (in turn). Each project proposal is evaluated and scored by one external and one internal USP member according to the following criteria:

1. Scientific excellence and novelty of the project proposal

Project proposals should have scientific quality, a clearly defined background, and be innovative. The significance of the project proposal in the context of international research and standards in the field as well as the relevance of the project to the scientist’s overall scientific work should be considered. Scores are:

  • 4. Excellent
  • 3. Good
  • 2. Sufficient
  • 0. Not competitive
     

2. Scientific feasibility/probability of delivery

Project proposals should have realistic scientific goals that can be achieved in the context of the ASSEMBLE Plus. Scores are:

  • 2. Good probability of delivery
  • 1. Doubtful
  • 0. Unrealistic; delivery unlikely
     

3. Need

Project proposals should explain why TA to the selected access provider is needed. Scores are:

  • 2. Explained convincingly
  • 1. Explained, but objectives could be achieved anywhere, including within the User’s own country
  • 0. Not clear why access to an Access Provider is needed
     

4. Priority to external applicants

  • 0.5. New, no former collaboration with in-house staff with which user requests collaboration, no shared publications over last 5 years.
  • 0.5. From non-marine disciplines
  • 0.5. From countries where state-of-the-art marine research infrastructure is unavailable
  • 0.5. External, not part of the ASSEMBLE Plus consortium
     

5. Compliance with the themes to be tested in the TA call (if applicable)

  • 0. Yes
  • 0. No
     

Maximum grades for all of the selection criteria sum up to 10. To fine-tune an evaluation, decimals can be given (e.g., 3.4, 1.7). Values serve as guidelines for evaluation. A project proposal obtaining any red score is rejected.

Each pair of evaluators is required to agree on a project proposal’s score and provide feedback that will be sent to the applicant. If they arrive at a similar score, the average of their scores is the final score. If their scores deviate by more than two points, another external USP member provides a score, which is averaged with the nearest score given by the primary evaluators.

 

Scientific review: the User Selection Panel

The User Selection Panel (USP) is in charge of the scientific review of the project proposal. The USP consists of six internal members  of the ASSEMBLE Plus Project Implementation Committee (in turn) and six external experts in the Advisory Board.

Project Implementation Committee (PIC) members 

Ilaria Nardello Project coordinator
Wiebe Kooistra WP3 Leader
Klaas Deneudt WP4 Leader
Adelino Canario WP5 Leader
Ibon Cancio WP6 Leader
Georgios Kotoulas WP7 Leader
Estefanìa Paredes Rosendo WP8 Leader
John Day WP8 Leader
Hector Escriva WP9 Leader
Ian Probert WP10 Leader
Martin Sayer WP11 Leader

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advisory Board members

Zbynek Kozmic Institute of Molecular Genetics of the ASCR
Jordi Garcia Fernandez Universitat de Barcelona
Georg Pohnert Max Planck Institute
Suzanne Williams Natural History Museum
Niall McDonough Marine Institute, Ireland
Mike Thorndyke Sven Lovén Centre University of Göteborg
Markus Pasterk BBMRI-ERIC
Douglas McKenzie Xanthella Ltd
Helena Abreu ALGAplus
Cristina Varese University of Turin
Ann Ruddy Redrose Developments
Euan Brown Heriot Watt University
 

Back to the Transnational Access main page

Website developed and maintained by Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ) | Privacy Policy