Physics Projectruimte

Transcription

1 Science Call for proposals Physics Projectruimte Applications must be submitted electronically to NWO through the ISAAC web portal (see Section 2.1). Physics Projectruimte does not have a deadline: you can submit proposals continuously. The proposals will be evaluated in batches of 15 to 25 in the order in which they are received. All proposals will be submitted to referees and the jury will reach a final assessment in a single evaluation round. Applications to the Physics Projectruimte can be submitted until 1 May 2018, 14h00. A researcher may attach his or her name as an applicant or co-applicant to only one Physics Projectruimte proposal every 12 months (see Section 1.2). New permanent academic staff and tenure-trackers can, under certain conditions, request a preferential treatment (see Section 1.4). The maximum amount that can be applied for is k 425. There are two exceptions to this rule (see Section 1.3), namely: o if the proposal contains a substantial investment component ( k 110), the maximum amount can be raised to k 600; o if applicants from two or more research groups submit a proposal for a joint project, then the maximum is k 600. We also ask you to justify any possible connection with one of the topsectors in the 'Application perspective' section of your proposal (see page 7). We ask you to include a short paragraph on data management in your proposal (see page 7). This paragraph will be excluded from the evaluation of your proposal by the jury. When your proposal is granted, we request that you change this paragraph into a brief data management plan (see page 18). When writing your proposal, please keep in mind that not all members of the jury are specialists in your discipline; their research fields, however, do have a strong physics component. Please make sure that the pages of your proposal are numbered. Utrecht, October 2017 Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research

2 Contents 1. Introduction Aim, framework and budget Who can apply? Types of support Preferential treatment for new permanent academic staff and tenure-trackers Data management 3 2. Guidelines for submitting proposals Submission through the ISAAC portal Guidelines Layout 4 3. Assessment procedure General information Evaluation and selection procedure Criteria Evaluation by the Projectruimte Jury Method Procedure Evaluation scale What is not relevant for the evaluation Contact details and other information Contact Dutch version 15

3 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1. Introduction 1.1 Aim, framework and budget The Physics Projectruimte is intended for proposals for innovative and risky fundamental research with a physics content, which are of high scientific quality and have a scientific, industrial or social urgency. Borderlines/ Grey areas The Physics Projectruimte is also intended for proposals on the fringes of physics, as long as a sufficient new contribution to physics can be demonstrated. Please remember that the jury which evaluates the proposals is mainly made up of physicists. Deadline Applications for the Physics Projectruimte can be submitted on a continuous basis until 1 May h00. Budget For projects to be granted after the publication of this call but before closure of the call on 1 May 2018 the available budget for funding is about M 6,2 within the Physics Projectruimte. 1.2 Who can apply? Proposals can be submitted by professors and permanent scientific staff at the Dutch universities or at other research organisations that - at least in part - are funded by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Individuals who - in the framework of a tenure-track position, a Vidi grant or a Vici grant - do not yet have a permanent appointment can also submit a proposal. However, their proposal must be accompanied by a declaration from the dean stating their prospect of a permanent position. Before submitting their proposal, applicants should settle with the management of their research institute whether a proposal can be submitted and how the project can be fitted within the institute's research programme. They should also settle with their management that use can be made of the necessary infrastructural facilities in the event that the proposal is granted. In cases of doubt, consultation between NWO and the management of the institute is desirable. A researcher may attach his or her name as an applicant or co-applicant to only one Physics Projectruimte proposal every 12 months. At least 12 months must have passed from receipt of the previous proposal by NWO or (previously) FOM before a researcher can submit a new proposal in the Projectruimte. This applies to all (co-)applicants of a proposal. 1.3 Types of support The maximum amount of funding per proposal that can be requested from NWO is limited to k 425. There are two exceptions to this rule: in the event that an investment budget of k 110 or more is requested for equipment, then the maximum budget applied for - insofar as this is necessary

4 2 Chapter 1: Introduction - may be increased by this amount to a maximum of k 600 (in case of an investment budget of k 110, the maximum is thus k 535); in the event that applicants from two or more research groups submit a joint application for a collaborative project in which a single problem is worked on from two distinctively different perspectives, then the maximum that can be applied for is k 600. Funds can be requested to cover the following costs: 1. temporary personnel appointments; 2. material budget (consumables, travel costs and publication costs); 3. equipment. Personnel A distinction is made between PhD students (four years), postdocs (maximum three years per position), technicians and guests. The rates for the different positions can be found in Section 2.3. Material budget The material budget covers consumables, supportive equipment, travel within the Nether-lands and abroad, recruitment/advertising costs, costs for foreign business travels and congress visits (including accommodation costs), et cetera. Reimbursements for indirect or infra-structural costs, such as permanent staff already present, the use of computer time for calculations, utility costs, cryogenic fluids, workplace costs, administration et cetera, cannot be applied for in the Physics Projectruimte. If you are uncertain whether something is covered, please contact the NWO Office. Equipment Equipment refers to durable goods, such as small and large instruments. These costs need to be specified. A proposal contains an investment component if the total costs for the realisation of the intended scientific set-up exceed k 110. In this case, the budget applied for - insofar this is necessary may be increased by this amount to a maximum of k 600 (in case of an investment budget of k 110, the maximum is thus k 535). Collaborative project In case of a collaborative project, a total maximum budget of k 600 may be applied for. A collaborative project is a project where applicants from at least two different research groups jointly submit a proposal. This can be a collaboration between an experimental and theoretical group, for example, or a cross-disciplinary collaboration between physics and mathematics, chemistry or biology. Please remember when writing an interdisciplinary proposal, that the jury is mostly made up of physicists. 1.4 Preferential treatment for new permanent academic staff and tenure-trackers The aim of the preferential treatment for new permanent academic staff and tenuretrackers is to increase the accessibility of the NWO system for this target group. Applicants that have recently obtained a permanent position, or a tenure-track appointment with the prospect of a permanent appointment, can make a one-off request for a preferential treatment if the following criteria are satisfied: the applicant has an appointment of at least 80 percent at the research institute where a substantial part of the research described in the proposal will be carried out; the request for the preferential treatment takes place within two years after the first permanent appointment or tenure-track position within the Netherlands;

5 3 Chapter 1: Introduction the applicant has not previously obtained support in Physics Projectruimte or former FOM-Projectruimte, the FOM-programmes, or other FOM programmes, a FOM Industrial Partnership Programme or in the form of a Vici grant from NWO; the applicant has not previously requested a preferential treatment in the Physics Projectruimte or former FOM-Projectruimte; he/she is the sole applicant submitting the proposal, i.e. there are no coapplicants; the budget requested does not exceed k 425. If an applicant wants to use preferential treatment, then this should be stated in a separate letter of submission accompanying the proposal. In this letter the applicant should also explain to what extent he/she satisfies the aforementioned conditions. Please note that in the case of a tenure-track appointment, the applicant should send a declaration that makes the prospect of a permanent position apparent (see Section 1.2). The application of the preferential treatment is described in Section Data management Responsible data management is part of good research. Therefore proposals for the Physics Projectruimte need to adhere to the data management protocol NWO. You are therefore kindly requested to answer four short questions about data management in the data management paragraph. When your proposal is granted, you will be requested to change this paragraph into a brief data management plan. The project can start as soon as NWO approves of the data management plan. You may update your data management plan during the research. Further information on the data management paragraph The data management paragraph is aimed at the storage of data during and after the research. In this section, NWO considers 'data' to be both collected, unprocessed data as well as analysed, generated data. In this definition all forms of data are conceivable; digital and non-digital (for example samples, images, lab journals etc.). NWO only requests storage of data relevant for reuse. NWO assumes in principle that within different disciplines there is a wide consensus about what data is relevant to store for reuse. In case of doubt the checklist of Research Data Netherlands may be used to decide the types of data qualifying for archiving. The importance and the value of reuse on the one hand and the costs and feasibility of data storage on the other should be in reasonable balance with each other, and have an effect on the amount of data to be stored. 1.6 Open Access The data should preferably be archived at a (inter)national data repository. When this is not possible, the data should be archived by the institutional repository. Confidential, privacy-sensitive or competition-sensitive data may require special forms of storage or limited access. Solely storing the data on computers or external media (e.g. USB flash drive, CD, DVD or hard disks) is, in general, risky and will therefore, in principle, not be approved of. An overview of existing repositories with Data Seal of Approval can be found in this list on datasealofapproval.org. All scientific publications of research funded by this 'Call for Proposals' are requested to be available through Open Access immediately after publication. There exist different ways for researchers to publish open access. A more detailed description can be found on the NWO website:

6 4 Chapter 2: Guidelines for submitting proposals 2. Guidelines for submitting proposals 2.1 Submission through the ISAAC portal You can only submit your proposal and possible letter of submission as a PDF file through the electronic application system ISAAC, using the following link: If you are using ISAAC for the first time, you will have to open an account. With your username (screen name) and associated password you can log into ISAAC in the future, for instance, to check the status of your application, to look into the referee comments or to write a rebuttal to these. Of course you will also be notified via every time a change is made in the status of your proposal, or if you are requested to provide information (such as a rebuttal). You can find more information via the link 'help' on the ISAAC site. 2.2 Guidelines A proposal should be written in English so that advice can be obtained from referees in the Netherlands and abroad. You should avoid using terms that are only understood in the Netherlands, such as 'oio'. The proposal should be a complete an independent document on its own, references to internal documents such as annual reports should be avoided. Only references to the 'open literature' are permitted. In the event that a reference to a preprint cannot be avoided, then you are requested to include a digital copy of this with the proposal so that referees can take note of this. Preprints will not be sent to the jury. If an applicant wants to request preferential treatment for new permanent staff and tenure-trackers, then this should be stated in a letter of submission included with the proposal as a separate PDF file. This letter should also state to what extent the requirements stated in Section 1.4 are satisfied. If you would like to request additional funds in the framework of the Sector plan physics and chemistry, then this should be stated in a letter of submission included with the proposal as a separate PDF file, you should state the main focus of all the applicants (see Section 3.3). You may object to certain people being requested to act as a referee, for example due to considerations related to scientific competition or knowledge dissemination/patents. You have the possibility to submit up to five names of people in ISAAC that will be excluded from refereeing. You will be automatically asked if you want to submit non-referees during the submission of your proposal in ISAAC. Please do not include any quotations requested for equipment as an integral part of the proposal. The pages in your proposal must be numbered. 2.3 Layout The proposals should be written according to the layout below and the headings of the sections should be copied in their entirety. This layout can also be downloaded as a Word template on the ISAAC webpage. Pages of the proposal must be

7 5 Chapter 2: Guidelines for submitting proposals numbered. Please do not make your proposal longer than necessary or at least in relation to the size and costs of the proposed project. 1. Title of the project The title is brief yet clear; in any case it is not a detailed description. 2. Abstract The summary of the project is brief: a few lines to half a page at the most. 3. Applicant(s) State applicant'(s) name(s) and title(s). If there is more than one applicant, we assume that the applicant stated first will be the main contact for the project. A researcher may only be an applicant or co-applicant of one (1) Physics Projectruimte proposal per twelve months. Applicants are permanently employed at a Dutch university, or at other research organisations (for example an NWO institute) that, at least in part, are funded by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Individuals who have a tenure-track position, a Vidi grant or a Vici grant can also submit a proposal. However, their proposal must be accompanied by a declaration from the dean, which states that they have a prospect of a permanent position after the temporary appointment period. In case a PhD position is part of the proposal, we request you to state the intended promotor. 4. Key publications of the applicants Give references (including title) of the (maximum) five most important publications or other material from the applicants so that the reviewers can form an impression of the capacities of the applicants. 5. Institute State name, address, telephone number and address of the laboratory or institute of the main applicant. Correspondence about the proposal will be sent to the main applicant unless stated otherwise in the proposal. 6. Duration of the project State when this project has begun or will begin and the project's probable duration. This can be a maximum of four years if it concerns a PhD student (except in cases where several PhD students are to be appointed in a more phased manner) and a maximum of three years if it concerns a postdoc position. 7. Personnel This section describes the (potential) personnel working on this project. The following subdivision should be applied in the estimation of the personnel Senior scientists List the names of the senior scientists collaborating on this project; state their intended tasks and the percentage of their work time they will put into this Junior scientists and technicians State how many (and if applicable which) junior scientists and technicians shall work on this project and what their tasks will be, as well as the proportion of their work time they will put into this. 8. Cost estimates NWO does not reimburse indirect or infrastructural costs, such as permanent staff already present, the use of computer time for calculations, utility costs, cryogenic fluids, administration and workplace costs et cetera for the Physics Projectruimte. In cases of doubt (for example, if you think that your situation forms an exception to this) please contact the NWO Office before you submit your proposal. The budget in this section applies to the entire duration of the project Personnel positions Specify the personnel costs requested; the NWO Office must be able to estimate the costs involved from the specifications.

8 6 Chapter 2: Guidelines for submitting proposals The size of the personnel costs to be funded can be looked up in the salary tables of the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (Dutch acronym: VSNU). The salary tables have been agreed upon in the 'Agreement for Funding Scientific Research' and are based on the collective labour agreement (Dutch acronym: cao) of the Dutch universities. Salary tables can be found : es Secondment costs for a long period at a national or foreign host institute should be stated separately. Please note: reimbursement will take place according to NWO rules Running budget Consumables, supportive equipment, travel within the Netherlands and abroad, recruitment/advertising costs, costs for foreign business trips and congress visits (including accommodation costs) et cetera. The following material budgets (consumables, travel costs and publication costs) can be requested without specification: - k 15 per year for one experimental position; - k 5 per year for one theoretical/computational position. If you think more material budget is needed, then the total material budget must be specified and substantiated in the proposal so that the desirability of the extra funding can be considered during the proposal's evaluation. Equipment requirements should be stated under the equipment section (8.3). Do not forget to include Dutch VAT and any possible import duties in the costs Equipment Equipment entails durable goods such as large and small equipment. These costs should also be specified. Only acquisition costs are eligible. Expenses for the use of existing equipment will not be covered. Do not forget to include Dutch VAT and any possible import duties in the costs Other support State the support in the form of personnel positions and budgets that will be obtained from other bodies for this work, such as from the host university, NWO, ERC etcetera Budget summary Give a brief summary of the budget requested from NWO (using the template below): TOTAL personnel (positions): PhD students postdocs technicians guests personnel (costs) running budget equipment TOTAL (requested from NWO) ( k 425/600) Please provide a realistic planning of the expenditure. Before you submit your proposal, please check all the figures in the table carefully. In recent years about 25 percent of proposals contained calculation errors.

9 7 Chapter 2: Guidelines for submitting proposals For a proposal without an investment component the total amount that may be requested from NWO (including personnel costs) is limited to k 425. The proposal contains an investment component if the total costs for realising the intended scientific set-up (i.e. the purchase of one or more pieces of equipment etc., see Section 9.3) amount to k 110 or more. In that case the budget requested may if necessary be increased with this amount to a maximum of k 600 (see Section 1.3) (in case of an investment budget of k 110, the maximum is thus k 535). In case of a joint proposal for a collaborative project, the maximum amount that can be applied for is k 600 (see Section 1.3). Please state in the table above which funds will be spent where/in which group. 9. Research programme A more detailed description of the research programme for the duration of the project is given here. Please remember when writing this section that by definition not all members of the jury are specialists in your field of expertise. In this section you should consider the following aspects in as much detail as necessary: the innovative, high risk character of the proposed research; the urgency of the proposed research; scientific relevance compared to related research; method and technique; if it is relevant for the proposed research: explain the realisation of the collaboration with other groups outside the institute. In this section other relevant aspects can also be raised. Applicants of proposals, at the fringes of physics in particular, should remember that the jury that evaluates the proposals is mainly made up of physicists. 10. Infrastructure State to what extent the infrastructure needed for the research is present in the research group(s). Describe the need to purchase and/or to develop equipment (see Section 9.3 as well). 11. Application perspective in industry, other disciplines or society NWO finances fundamental research of high quality and, in so doing, does not draw a distinction between intrinsically-driven or extrinsically-driven research. Furthermore, in all cases NWO wants to encourage researchers to actively think about the possible application perspectives before, during and after their research. Hence the Section 'application perspective' has been included. Describe (if relevant to your research) how you expect the underlying knowledge that is to be developed will eventually lead to new techniques or applications in other sciences, engineering, industry or society in general. State whether the research fits within one of the government's topsectors and underlying roadmaps. Please, provide a concise motivation that is as concrete as possible in this case. You should also state, as tangibly as possible, how you think you will realise the transfer of knowledge to potential users and the role your research will have in this. Experience has taught that it is useful to discuss the proposal in advance with the intended users. Furthermore, an equally valid answer is that there is no application perspective. Referees and the jury will be explicitly requested to evaluate the text in this section. 12. Data management Proposals for the Physics Projectruimte need to adhere to the NWO policy data management (see page 6). We therefore request that you write a short data management paragraph by answering the four questions on data management below: 1. Will you collect or generate data that is suitable for reuse? If yes: please answer question 2 to 4.

10 8 Chapter 2: Guidelines for submitting proposals If not: please explain why the research will not result in reusable data, or in data that cannot be stored, or data that for other reasons is not relevant for reuse. 2. Where will the data be stored during the research? 3. After the project has been completed, how will the data be stored for the long-term and made available for use by third parties? To whom will the data be accessible? 4. What facilities (ICT, glove box, refrigerator etc.) do you expect you need for the storage of data during and after the research? Are these available? 13. Subfield classification Please state the subfield of physics in which the research proposed can be categorised. Please see the table on the next page for a description of the classification in subfields. You should only state one subfield, i.e. FL, NANO, FuF, SAF, COMOP, FeF or OF. 14. Public summary of your research proposal Please supply both an English and a Dutch version (max. fifty words each), including an English and a Dutch popular title. This summary will be used on the NWO website in case the project is granted. 15. References References to articles relevant for the proposal and references to an overview article, book or other basic documents to provide pointers for evaluators that are less familiar with the specific subject area concerned.

11 9 Chapter 2: Guidelines for submitting proposals Classification of subfields in physics Physics of life processes (FL) - experimental, theoretical and static physics of: biomolecules biomolecular assemblies biomolecular networks cells photosynthesis neural networks Nanophysics/nanotechnology (NANO) - nanomedicine bionano interfaces nano-imaging of cell processes lab-on-a-chip nanofluidic systems drug delivery nanosensors - beyond Moore nanophotonics, nano-optics, nanoelectronics quantum information processing spintronics graphene plasmonics molecular-scale devices and integrated circuits single photon and single electron detectors - functional nanoparticles and nanopatterned surfaces nanoparticles nanomaterials nanomanufacturing ultrathin layers quantum dots instrumentation for observation and manipulation at the nanoscale Fusion physics (FuF) - magnetohydrodynamics of hot plasmas - plasma-wall interaction and reactor materials - Tokamak physics Subatomic physics (SAF) - elementary particle physics - astroparticle physics deep-sea neutrino research radio detection of cosmic rays gravitational waves - string theory - accelerator and detection technology Condensed matter and optical physics (COMOP) - atomic and molecular physics - cold atoms and Bose-Einstein condensation - quantum and non-linear optics - surface and boundary layer physics - structure and properties of condensed matter (incl. 'materials science') - collective phenomena - soft matter (e.g. polymers and colloids) Phenomenological physics (FeF) - fluid physics in the widest sense simple and complex fluids microfluidics and nanofluidics turbulence and geophysical flow acoustics and ultrasound in fluids low-temperature plasma physics - mesoscopic and macroscopic physics of materials materials for miniaturisation composite materials biomaterials friction and tribology synthesis of materials - metrology and instrumentation optical measurement techniques medical instrumentation (incl. clinical applications) Other physics (OF) - mathematical physics - astrophysics - physics of information technology/ compu tational physics (incl. grid computing) - atmospheric physics - foundations of physics

12 10 Chapter 3: Assessment procedure 3. Assessment procedure 3.1 General information The NWO Physics Projectruimte does not know any deadlines. You can submit your proposals on a continuous basis. The proposals will be evaluated in batches of 15 to 25 in the order in which they are received. All proposals will be submitted to referees and a jury will reach a final assessment in a single evaluation round. Applications for the Physics Projectruimte can be submitted until 1 May h00. Jury The proposals submitted will be evaluated by a jury. The jury is of a broad composition and is made up of physicists that work in various subfields of physics; boundary areas are also represented in this and efforts will be made to include some researchers from industrial laboratories and large technology institutes. The jury members give their evaluation independently from each other. This means that the jury does not meet. When writing your proposal, please remember that, by definition, not all members of the jury are specialists in your discipline. 3.2 Evaluation and selection procedure Schedule The main applicant will receive a confirmation of receipt shortly after the proposal has been received. NWO subsequently tries to take a decision about your proposal as quickly as possible. Once the evaluation process has started, it will take about 14 weeks in total. At the start of the process the first applicant will be informed about the schedule, especially the time period in which the referees' comments will be submitted for rebuttal and when a decision about the proposal can be expected from the accredited board. The general schedule for the evaluation process is: week x start evaluation process: consultation of referees, informing applicant about schedule, rebuttal and expected date funding decision week x + 6 Referees' comments are sent to applicant (the rebuttal must be returned within 72 hours) week x +7 Proposal (together with a number of other proposals) are sent to jury week x + 11 Jury evaluation completed week x + 14 Announcement is made of the funding decision of the accredited board Referees' comments and the rebuttal All of the proposals are submitted to several referees with expertise in the subject area of the proposal. They are requested to provide detailed comments, which are passed onto the applicants for a rebuttal. The main applicant is approached about this by , unless otherwise indicated in the proposal. The applicants will have 72 hours to submit the rebuttal. The referees' comments and the rebuttal will be compiled in a protocol.

13 11 Chapter 3: Assessment procedure Final evaluation, ranking and decision The proposals and the protocols compiled will then be submitted to the jury, who will rank the proposals. The proposals will be ranked based on the scores given by the jury. The most important score will be the overall evaluation. The accredited board will then take a decision about whether or not to fund these proposals. 3.3 Criteria A proposal for which preferential treatment has been requested will be treated in the same manner as other proposals. If the proposal falls within the 50 percent of best proposals for the batch evaluated then it will be eligible for funding. A maximum of two proposals can be awarded funding by the accredited board in this manner for each batch of 15 to 25 proposals evaluated. 3.4 After the decision to award funding The projects funded should start as soon as possible after the granting decision has been taken. Therefore, NWO reserves the right to take suitable actions if the proposed research has not started after six months of granting the requested funds. In light of the pilot data management, you will receive a request to change your data management paragraph into a brief data management plan in case your project is funded. The general scheme for this plan is laid out in Appendix A of this Call for Proposals (and will be sent separately to you in case your project is funded). We request that you submit this plan as soon as possible to NWO. NWO will examine the plan as quickly as possible, but at least within two weeks after submission. The project may start when NWO has approved the plan. The data management plan is open for changes during the research. As a consequence of the transition of FOM and NWO, funding of projects after 1 January 2017 will no longer take place in the form of allocation of funds and appointment of personnel positions, but rather in the form of a grant according to the up-to-date version of the NWO regulations for subsidies. The project should be concluded with a final report from the project leader. This person will receive this request in time from the NWO Office.

14 12 Chapter 4: Evaluation by the Projectruimte Jury 4. Evaluation by the Projectruimte Jury 4.1 Method The aim of the evaluation is to award the proposals that fit best within the objective of the NWO Physics Projectruimte (see Section 1.1). The jury members will be requested to rank the scientific quality and the innovative high risk character for each proposal. They will also be asked to provide an overall score. The evaluations should be based on the evaluation scales described in Section 4.3. The overall score does not necessarily have to be the arithmetic mean of the subsidiary scores. Jury members are free to adopt their own weighing factors or other considerations in making their evaluation. During the funding decision, the overall evaluations of the proposals are usually employed. The jury's advice should be limited to the scientific aspects. The jury should not include general policy considerations in its evaluation, for example, whether something is eligible for indirect government funding, whether it is socially responsible to appoint a certain person in the proposed manner, whether the proposal has been submitted to the correct indirect government funding organisation, whether an application perspective is sufficiently in view or other such questions (see also Section 4.4). We would furthermore like to notify the jury that the data management paragraph is explicitly not to be taken into account when rating the proposal (see Paragraph 1.5). Jury members are invited, however, to notify the accredited board of any possible policy arguments. NWO adheres to the premise of adequate funding for research. The cost aspects should only play a secondary role in the jury evaluation, for example if the jury member is of the opinion that equally good data or insights can be obtained more cheaply or if the jury member is of the opinion that the study design is not adequate enough to lead to good results. In this case the cost aspect can be an important argument to give a less favourable score. In a similar manner, the answer to the question about the application perspective can also play a secondary role: for example, the applicant does not see any applications even though there are some, or the applicant sees applications that are not there (in the opinion of the jury based on the proposal and protocol). The members of the jury should clearly give their own evaluation and not to try to give a 'counterbalancing' character to their evaluation in anticipation of what others might do. The evaluations remain completely anonymous. Only a few members of staff at the NWO office will process the complete information. They are subject to a confidentiality agreement. 4.2 Procedure The jury members are requested to give their numerical evaluation of the proposals based on the proposal and, if applicable, the protocol, using the evaluation scale in Section 4.3.

15 13 Chapter 4: Evaluation by the Projectruimte Jury 4.3 Evaluation scale When using the evaluation scale it should be noted that a proposal does not have to satisfy all of the characteristics in equal amount in order to obtain a certain evaluation. 1. Outstanding - Important highly innovative, high risk research that can lead to a gigantic step forward in our fundamental physical knowledge or in the methods and techniques for obtaining that knowledge. - It is vital to investigate to what extent the chosen physical phenomenon or material or the proposed instrumentation is suitable for the intended application. - An outstanding researcher and/or research team. - A well-chosen and highly original problem. - The research method is highly original and effective. - Very urgent for science/industry/society. - The application possibilities and/or the connection with a top sector are outstandingly presented and reasoned. 2. (between 1 and 3). 3. Very good - This innovative high risk research can lead to a substantial step forward in our fundamental physical knowledge or in the methods and techniques for obtaining that knowledge. - It is important to investigate to what extent the chosen physical phenomenon or material or the proposed instrumentation is suitable for the intended application. - A competent researcher and/or research team. - An important, original problem. - The research method is original and effective. - A quick tackling of the problem is important to science/industry/society. - The application possibilities and/or the connection with a topsector have been presented and reasoned very realistically. 4. (between 3 and 5). 5. Satisfactory - Our fundamental physical knowledge will be increased to a limited extent or the methods and techniques for obtaining the knowledge will be improved to a limited extent by means of this project, that contains several innovative high risk aspects. - It is useful to investigate to what extent the chosen physical phenomenon or the proposed instrumentation is suitable for the intended field of application. - An average researcher and/or research team. - A reasonably original problem. - This project can be tackled with the proposed research method which shows some original elements but other possibilities are also conceivable. - The application possibilities and/or the connection with a topsector are realistically presented and reasoned. 6. (between 5 and 7). 7. Moderate - This project is a continuation of previously conducted research and has little scientific value outside its own completion. - It is far from certain whether this research fits within the capacities of the researcher and/or the research team; the proposal does not contain any clear errors. - A moderately interesting standard problem. - It is not likely that the chosen material or physical phenomenon or the proposed instrumentation is suitable for the intended field of application. - It is very questionable whether the project can be successfully tackled with this standard research method. - The application possibilities and/or the connection with a top sector have been overestimated, i.e. they are not sufficiently argued.

16 14 Chapter 4: Evaluation by the Projectruimte Jury 8. (between 7 and 9). 9. Inadequate - The proposal contains serious errors or mistakes. - The competence of the researcher and/or research team is considered to be insufficient. - An irrelevant problem or one previously explored by others. - There is no relationship between the material or physical phenomenon or the proposed instrumentation and the field of application. - This outdated research method is not suitable for this project. - The application possibilities and/or the connection with a topsector have been grossly overestimated, and/ or no reasons have been given for these. 4.4 What is not relevant for the evaluation Several examples of policy arguments that the jury members should not include in their evaluation are given below: the university could pay for this itself; this research has no applications outside of its own subject area; this should be funded from a different budget; doubts whether the university can make sufficient calculation time available; the costs are so high that many other projects would not be able to start if this proposal was awarded funding; this does not really fit within the working area of NWO; this fits well within one of the existing NWO programmes; such an appointment of personnel should not take place for a project; this does not fit in the programmes of the existing NWO organisational structure; this work must be concentrated at a single location; the group is already very large (if it is suspected that the day-to-day supervision will therefore be less, then this is an acceptable argument); the group has recently received so much support; NWO ought not to subsidize any foreign personnel; the data management is not organised properly. Jury members may, however, submit their policy-related arguments to the accredited board independently of their numerical evaluation.

17 15 Chapter 5: Contact details and other information 5. Contact details and other information 5.1 Contact If you have any queries about the NWO Physics Projectruimte that are not answered by this guide, please contact the NWO Office: dr. Marieke van Santen, (070) or dr. Anouk de Hoogh, (030) Please note: you cannot use this address to submit your proposal Technical questions about the electronic application system ISAAC For technical questions about the use of ISAAC please contact the ISAAC helpdesk. Please read the manual first before consulting the helpdesk. The ISAAC helpdesk can be contacted from Monday to Friday between 10:00 and 17:00 hours CE(S)T on +31 (0) However, you can also submit your question by to You will then receive an answer within two working days. 5.2 Dutch version A full Dutch version of this call for proposals is available on the website. The text in the Dutch version of the call is leading.

18 Published by: Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) Version: October 2017 Visiting address: Van Vollenhovelaan JP Utrecht The Netherlands