Scientific review: the selection criteria
Applications 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 application 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
Applications 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:
- 5. Excellent
- 4. Very Good
- 3. Good
- 2. Sufficient
- 0. Not competitive. The project is rejected.
2. Probability of delivery
Applications should have realistic scientific goals that can be achieved in the context of the ASSEMBLE Plus. Scores are:
- 1. Good probability of delivery
- 0.5. Likely probability of delivery
- 0. Unrealistic; delivery unlikely. The project is rejected.
3. Need
Applications should explain why TA to the selected access provider is needed. Scores are:
- 1. Explained convincingly
- 0.5. Somewhat clear
- 0. Not clear why access to a marine station is needed. The project is rejected.
4. Other criteria
- 1. Applicant from non-marine discipline, and/or from country where state-of-the-art marine research infrastructure is unavailable
- 1. Early career scientist (<5 years following PhD) or PhD student
- 1. No joint publication over last 5 years with in-house staff with which user requests collaboration
- -2. Repeat user: access received at the same access provider in previous TA calls of ASSEMBLE Plus.
Maximum grades for all of the selection criteria sum up to 10.
Values serve as guidelines for evaluation. An application obtaining any red score is rejected.
Each pair of evaluators is required to agree on an application’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 applications. 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
| Nicolas Pade | Project coordinator |
| Wiebe Kooistra | WP3 Leader |
| Katrina Exter | WP4 Leader |
| Adelino Canario | WP5 Leader |
| Ibon Cancio | WP6 Leader |
| Georgios Kotoulas | WP7 Leader |
| Estefanìa Paredes Rosendo | WP8 Leader |
| Hector Escriva | WP9 Leader |
| Ian Probert | WP10 Leader |
| Martin Sayer | WP11 Leader |
Advisory Board members
| Zbyněk Kozmik | 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 |
