Marie Skłodowska-Curie Bireysel Burslar 2014 Çağrısı Ülkesine Geri Dönüş (Reintegration) Paneli Hakem Değerlendirme Raporları Analizi İçindekiler

Transkript

1 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Bireysel Burslar 2014 Çağrısı Ülkesine Geri Dönüş (Reintegration) Paneli Hakem Değerlendirme Raporları Analizi İçindekiler 1. Marie Sklodowska-Curie Bireysel Burslar 2015 Yılı Çağrısı Marie Sklodowska Curie Bireysel Burslar / Ülkesine Geri Dönüş (Reintegtation - RI) Paneli Marie Sklodowska Curie Bireysel Burslar Proje Değerlendirme Kriterleri Marie Sklodowska Curie Bireysel Burslar 2014 Yılı Çağrısı / Ülkesine Geri Dönüş Paneli (Reintegration -RI) Hakem Değerlendirme Raporları Analizi Marie Sklodowska Curie Bireysel Araştırma Bursları - Proje Ön Değerlendirme Desteği... 12

2 1. Marie Sklodowska-Curie Bireysel Burslar 2015 Yılı Çağrısı Marie Sklodowska Curie (MSC) Alanı altında yer alan Bireysel Burslar (Individual Fellowships) ay süre ile araştırmacıların uluslararası dolaşımını desteklemektedir. Tüm araştırma alanlarından proje önerilerinin desteklenebildiği bu programa en az doktora derecesine veya dört yıllık araştırma tecrübesine sahip deneyimli araştırmacılar başvuruda bulunabilmektedir. Başarılı projeler için Avrupa Komisyonu nca sunulan destek miktarları şu şekildedir: Araştırmacı Desteği Kurum Desteği Yaşam Giderleri Desteği Dolaşım Giderleri Desteği Aile ile Dolaşım Halinde Katkı Araştırma ve Eğitim Desteği Yönetimsel ve Dolaylı Masraflar 4,650 Avro/ay 600 Avro/ay 500 Avro/ay 800 Avro/ay 650 Avro/ay Bireysel Burslar 2015 yılı çağrısı 12 Mart 2015 tarihinde açılmış olup, ilgili araştırmacıların adresi üzerinden 10 Eylül 2015 tarihine kadar Avrupa Komisyonu na proje başvurusunda bulunmaları gerekmektedir. Başvuru aşamasında MSCA Türkiye Ulusal İrtibat Noktaları ile irtibata geçmeleri ve başvuru hakkında detaylı bilgi edinmeli önerilir: 2. Marie Sklodowska Curie Bireysel Burslar / Ülkesine Geri Dönüş (Reintegration - RI) Paneli Bireysel Burslar altında yer alan bu panele Avrupa Birliği üye ve asosiye ülkeler dışından Türkiye ye yeni gelmiş ya da gelmeyi düşünen (son 5 yılda 36 aydan fazla Türkiye de bulunmamış olma şartını sağlayan) araştırmacılar, 12 ila 24 ay arasında kendilerinin belirleyeceği proje süresi boyunca desteklenmek üzere başvuruda bulunabilirler. Bu panelde tüm araştırma alanlarından sunulan proje önerileri diğer MSCA IF başvurularında olduğu gibi konu başlıklarına ayrılarak değerlendirmeye tabi tutulmamaktadır. RI paneli, sunulan tüm proje önerilerini konusunda uzman hakemlerin değerlendirmesinin ardından verilen puanların aynı listede sıralanması sonucunda desteklenecek proje önerilerini açıklamaktadır. Her geçen yıl başvuru sayısı 2

3 ve kalitesinde artış rekabeti artırmakta; araştırmacıların en az hata ile değerlendirme kriterleri ışığında proje önerilerini hazırlamaları desteklenebilmeleri için önem arz etmektedir. Bu nedenle; Bireysel Burslar 2014 Çağrısı Ülkesine Geri Dönüş Paneli ne (Reintegration-RI) sunulan proje önerilerinin hakemlerce değerlendirilmeleri sonucunda başvuranlara iletilen proje değerlendirme raporlarını baz alarak TÜBİTAK Marie S. Curie ekibince bu analiz dokümanı hazırlanmıştır. Proje önerisi yazımında dikkat edilmesi gereken noktalara araştırmacıların dikkatini çekmek amacıyla hazırlanan bu doküman sadece RI paneline proje önerisi sunan araştırmacılara değiş, diğer MSCA IF çağrısı panellerine bireysel burs başvurusu yapacak araştırmacılara da ipuçları sunacaktır. Proje önerisi hazırlıklarınız sırasında TUBITAK Marie S. Curie Ekibi olarak sizlere yardımcı olmaktan memnuniyet duyacağımızı belirtir, her türlü soru ve bilgi talepleriniz için bizlerle adresimiz aracılığı ile iletişime geçebileceğinizi hatırlatmak isteriz. 3. Marie Sklodowska Curie Bireysel Burslar Proje Değerlendirme Kriterleri Marie Sklodowska Curie Bireysel Burslar kapsamında hakemlerin dikkate aldığı Avrupa Komisyonu nca yayınlanan MSCA Çalışma Programında yer alan değerlendirme kriterleri şu şekildedir: Excellence (Weight 50%) Implementation (Weight 20%) Impact (Weight 30%) Quality, innovative aspects and credibility of the research Clarity and quality of transfer of knowledge/training Quality of the supervision Capacity of the researcher Overall coherence and effectiveness of the work plan Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures Appropriateness of the institutional environment Competences, experience and complementarity of the participating organisations and institutional commitment Enhancing research- and innovationrelated human resources, skills, and working conditions to realise the potential of individuals and to provide new career perspectives Effectiveness of the proposed measures 3

4 for communication and results dissemination NB: An overall threshold of 70% will be applied to the total weighted score. 4

5 4. Marie Sklodowska Curie Bireysel Burslar 2014 Yılı Çağrısı / Ülkesine Geri Dönüş Paneli (Reintegration -RI) Hakem Değerlendirme Raporları Analizi Excellence Strength - The project objectives are clearly explained and relevant to the state of the art. The methodology is professionally presented and is relevant regarding the topic. The project is a natural continuation of previous research and is well placed in the host institutions. - The research objective is clearly defined. The core idea is relatively simple, scientifically convincing and accurately explained. Quantitative comparisons and arguments are explicitly provided, assuring credibility of the main idea. - The project will enhance the researcher s knowledge in the science field and add to the fellow s knowledge transfer skills. This is explained and justified in several aspects: the research methodology, the training courses and the involvement in the organisational activities. - The candidate has proved a potential for reaching a professional maturity as well as a potential to acquire new knowledge. The plans to increase the professional maturity are adequately described. The researcher's background and track record, such as publications, and their past research are most significant to the success of the current research. - The multidisciplinary aspects of the project in relation to the planned research activities are well presented. - The training to achieve transferable skills is well described. - The capacity of the researcher to reach or re-enforce a Weakness - The state of the art is not convincingly discussed, methodology beyond case study selection is insufficiently addressed. - The appropriateness of the research methodology and approach is not convincing and lacks coherence in respect to the different tasks. - There is uncertainty related to the sampling and data analyses and the model approach is insufficiently addressed - The number of publications in high-impact journals is limited. - The proposal aims to develop methods for asymmetric synthesis but the methodology to achieve this lacks detail. - Furthermore, a proper description of the real advantages of the use of heterogeneous catalyst is missing. Limited evidence is provided that the approach might be general in terms of reaction type and substrate scope e.g. it is not clear if the proposed approach can be applicable - Teaching experience to undergraduates or PhD students, which is an important contribution for reaching professional maturity in research, is insufficiently demonstrated. - Complementary skills training e.g. leadership courses/ proposal writing etc., is not sufficiently described. - The supervisor s expertise in successfully mentoring experienced researchers is not adequately documented in the proposal. - The hosting arrangements at the host and during the secondment are not sufficiently described. - Some important basic methodological aspects are lacking 5

6 position of professional maturity in research is well described. - The transfer of knowledge from the researcher to the host is clearly identified and adequate and accompanied by transfer of knowledge to researcher on new and powerful techniques in image analysis, setting up a data capture platform and non-scientific aspects such as research management, project management and teaching. - The host arrangements are appropriate to support the project. - The description on how the researcher will benefit from performing the project with regards to sharpening technical skills and knowledge is good. - The quality of the supervisors is very convincingly described and the quality of the supervision and hosting arrangements is very good. - The synergy between the combined profiles of the researcher and the supervisor is very strong. - The experience of the supervisor is described and connected to some aspects of the proposal and to the mentoring of the applicant. - The supervisor is of the requisite quality, with plenty of supervision experience who is clearly able to lead the project and to guide the fellow, with excellent track record of publications and funding. - The supervisor has a strong track record in mentorship and relevant research whilst the hosting arrangements are well described should enable a rapid integration of the researcher. The international network of the researcher and the host lab provide key expertise relevant for the success of the proposed project - The applicant has a consistent track record of (e.g., which tasks will be used to assess cognitive functions). - The hosting arrangements for the researcher are not sufficiently explained and only a very general description is provided. - The channels of transfer of knowledge are not properly described. The presented transfer of knowledge does not contain enough specific details and sufficient information in order to evaluate its quality and direct relevance to the research project. - - The training of the fellow is not formalized. Furthermore, transfer of knowledge from the host to the researcher is not sufficiently clear. - - The arrangements for hosting the applicant are not sufficiently specified. The human resources of the host laboratory are low. - - Although the fellow documents some leadership qualities e.g. teaching and supervising activities, the capacity of the applicant to reach a position of professional maturity is not fully supported, e.g. by grant applications or research collaboration. - The supervision and teaching activities of the researcher are not well developed. - The expected outcomes of the proposed experiments are not described in adequate detail. - There is a discrepancy between the title of the project, its purposes and its description. - - The methodology and approaches of the proposal are not sufficiently detailed. - - The project has a limited degree of multidisciplinary. The main hypothesis is not supported by sufficient experimental evidence and detailed description of the state of the art, research objectives, and research methodology to achieve these are missing. 6

7 publications in very good journals, as well as large and diverse experience in student project Supervision - The fellow has a track record of experience and publications consistent with achieving professional maturity. - There is also a potential complementarity between the classic design experience of the host and the new techniques brought along by the applicant. - The project methodology, which combines observation and modeling, is appropriate with original aspects. - Innovativeness and originality of the project is not clearly outlined. - A career development plan is not clearly defined; clarity and quality of technological training and transfer of knowledge is not demonstrated since the training objectives are not described in sufficient detail. - The hosting arrangements are not described. Capacity of the supervisor to train advanced researchers is not clearly outlined. - Potential for reaching a position of professional maturity through the fellowship is not convincingly demonstrated. Implementation - The host institutions have the necessary infrastructure and valuable networking collaboration for the implementation of this project. - The host institution has high competences for the tasks to be accomplished as well as experience and the proposal shows complementarities of the participating organizations. - The overall work plan is coherent with the objectives of the proposed research. - The planned activities are sufficiently described and tasks and resources are allocated appropriately. - The technical risks are highlighted and some mitigation measures are proposed - The work plan is coherent with the scientific objectives; WPs are described with an overall schedule and key - The infrastructures and facilities available at the host institute are not described with adequate detail. - The proposal fails to describe a career development plan for the researcher and there is no convincing mention of longterm institutional commitment. - The information on work packages is inadequately presented. - It is difficult to assess the allocation of tasks on the basis of such a general plan. - The Gantt chart lacks detail on milestones and deliverables. - Monitoring arrangements are not sufficiently specified. - The time planned to spend in the host institution is limited in relation to the envisaged tasks. - The risk assessments and contingency plans are not adequately addressed. - The work plan does not describe in sufficient detail how each 7

8 deliverables and milestones are identified which align with the completion of WPs. - Appropriate institutional environments and infrastructure are described. - The institutional commitment of the participating organisation is clearly demonstrated. - Competences and experience of the beneficiary are well explained and appropriate. - The management structure is clear. The analysis and contingency plans are adequately defined. - The applicant past experience fits very well with the interests of host organization. - The envisioned time line is appropriate for the proposed experimental tasks and there is a clear description of work packages. The work plan is feasible and coherent. Deliverables and milestones are outlined. - The host institution has experience in managing research grants and fellowships. - Progress will be closely monitored by the supervisor through weekly lab meetings and informal daily interactions as needed. - The host institute is internationally recognized for research excellence and has all the facilities required for the successful completion of the proposal - The Gantt chart is very detailed. - The planned work, although very ambitious, is realistic owing to the detailed contingency plans and convincing risk assessment which are provided. Work Package has been adapted to the specific objectives of the proposal (a Gantt chart is not provided). There is no specific disclosure of the experimental approach, nor appropriate description of the tasks, responsibilities, rules of cooperation, nor sufficient detail on the duration of WPs. - Several members of the team will be involved but their specific roles in each Work Package is not explained. - The role of host s researchers mentioned in the research program lacks clarity. - A detailed description of the infrastructure and equipment as well as complementary training facilities at the host institution is missing. Poor description of the expertise of each party involved and poor description of the resources of the institution. - A strong commitment to the researcher training to achieve a position of professional maturity is lacking. - IP issues are not mentioned. - There is insufficient consideration of contingency plans for the recruitment of special participant populations. - Concerning the management issues, decision procedures are not clearly presented. - Some inputs required for the project are not considered in the risk assessment. 8

9 Impact - The impact on European society and its economy is well described. - Proposed measures for communication are listed in the proposal and highly relevant for the purpose of the project. The communication channels which have been chosen have good potentials to reach the target audience. - The enhancement of research-related human resources is adequately described. - The skills of the researcher are expected to considerably improve in project management. - The potential impact on the researcher's career perspectives is good. - The measures for dissemination of project results towards the scientific community and general public are adequately described - Intellectual Property Rights issues are well described. - The experience gained by the applicant will strengthen his career perspectives through the envisaged research activities - Dissemination activities are detailed, including publications, workshop and participation in the automotive events, public engagement, and industryrelated actions. - The description of the dissemination of the results by means of conferences, publications and open access resources is appropriate. - The positive impact on science and society is convincingly presented. - Results dissemination and measures for communication are detailed. - The exploitation of the results of the project is discussed. - Communication with the media and exploitation of the - No involvement in teaching as well as seminars is clearly demonstrated. - Public engagement activities are insufficiently described. - The scientific dissemination plan through attendance of meetings and publication in peer-reviewed journals is not adequately detailed. - The proposal does not provide strong evidence to support rapid progression to independence of the researcher after the end of the fellowship. - The proposal does not elaborate with factual arguments how the project s achievements will support career plans or provide new career perspectives. - Mid-term and long-term prospects for improving and stabilizing the applicant's academic career, and thus fully reintegrate him at the host institution, are not sufficiently considered in the proposal. - The dissemination approach of the project results is only broadly addressed and not specifically tailored to the project needs. - The exploitation aspects of the developed technology are not discussed in sufficient depth. - The skills which will be acquired by the applicant through the project are not sufficiently clear. - Although a communication and public engagement strategy are presented by the applicant, it relies mostly on actions already developed by the host. - The information provided within the page limit does not describe in sufficient detail the capacity of the researcher to reach a position of professional maturity. - The public outreach activities are very briefly described and do not identify specific researcher activities in sufficient detail. - The mobility aspect as well as the development of new collaborations is limited. 9

10 results by patents is adequately planned. - The dissemination of research results will use primarily open access publications and the large scale sequencing data-sets will be accessible to peers through open access databases which is very good. - The success of the research project would give visibility to the applicant and perspectives for a future career within the host institution. - The outreach activities and public engagement of the action are well addressed and sound. - The researcher is strongly committed to disseminate his work to the general public - Dissemination toward scientific community is well planned and data will be stored on an open-source dataserver - Specific scientific meetings are planned which are very good. - Exploitation of results has been foreseen and is appropriate. - It is clear that the fellowship will significantly enhance the scientific skills and expertise of the applicant - Proposed measures for communication and dissemination are satisfactory. - Given the originality and relevance of the research project, the impact of the fellowship on science and society will be substantial. The fellowship provides an important boost for the future career of researcher, including new skills obtained, favourable working conditions and enlargement of international networks. The fellow envisages an application for a medium size research grant and establishment of an independent research group. - The project has the potential impact to contributing to - - A comprehensive skills training program and career development plan is not discussed. - - The project will not consolidate the applicant s CV to a level sufficient for an academic research position in the home country. - - Communication of results is not adequately described; no relevant meetings or workshops identified for dissemination. - - Considerations regarding communication of results with respect to the involvement of industry are not provided. - The proposed actions to industries and public are limited to local environment. Potential impacts on other fields of applications are not clearly proposed. - - Nothing in particular is foreseen to reach important stakeholders groups, such as the policy makers or the EU institutions. 10

11 European competitiveness and excellence - The benefit of the mobility is very clearly described. 11

12 5. Marie Sklodowska Curie Bireysel Araştırma Bursları - Proje Ön Değerlendirme Desteği Ön Değerlendirme Destekleri Programı, Marie Sklodowska Curie Bireysel Araştırma Bursları na sunulacak proje önerilerinin, projeler sunulmadan önce, bu konulardaki başvuruları değerlendirme konusunda uzman kişi ve kuruluşlarca incelenmesi amacıyla verilecek bir destek programıdır. MSCA Bireysel Burslarında son yıllarda rekabet düzeyi ve başvuru sayısı oldukça artış göstermiştir. İlgili destek programı ile TÜBİTAK, sunulan proje önerilerinin son kontrollerinin uzman kişi veya kurumlar tarafından yapılmasını dolayısı ile ülkemizden başarılı proje sayısının arttırılmasını hedeflemektedir. Ön değerlendirme desteğine başvuruda bulunmak için, araştırmacının ilgili destek çağrısı kapsamında belirlenen ön koşulları ve diğer değerlendirme kriterlerini (Marie Sklodowska-Curie Bireysel Araştırma Bursları değerlendirme kriterleri) yerine getirmesi ve başvuru için uygun özelliklere sahip olması gerekmektedir. MSC Bireysel Burslar 2015 yılı Proje Ön Değerlendirme Desteği hakkındaki detaylı bilgiye adresinden ulaşabilirsiniz. 12