COST Open Call Guidelines for TDP Pilot 1

Transcription

1 COST Office Avenue Louise Brussels, Belgium t: +32 (0) f: +32 (0) COST Open Call Guidelines for TDP Pilot 1 Table of Contents Version March 2014 List of Tables... 2 List of Acronyms Purpose of the Guidelines Conflict of Interest Anonymity Proposers Evaluators European Commission Involvement Open Call Observers COST and the COST Open Call The COST Framework About COST Actions COST Open Call The TDP Pilot Evaluation and Selection Procedure What You Need to Know before Drafting a COST Action Proposal Action Strategy and Structure COST Categories of Objectives and Main Deliverables and Outputs Action Participants The Network of Proposers How to Prepare and Submit a Proposal for a COST Action Eligibility Criteria Proposers who wish to submit a Trans-Domain Proposal starting from Open Call and Experts involved in any stage of evaluation should refer to this document only. Due to the pilot nature of this procedure, parts of these guidelines may be changed at any time without prior notice. To be sure to refer to the latest guidelines, users are invited to regularly check the latest available version of these Guidelines on the COST website. 1

2 8.2 Proposal Registration Proposal Submission Summary Expertise Network Strategy Section A: Challenge Section B: Added Value of Networking Section C: Milestones and Deliverables: contents and time-frames Section D: Action Structure and Participation Working Groups, Management, Internal Procedures Bibliographic references Proposal Style-Guide How COST Proposals are Evaluated and Selected Guidelines for External Experts involved in the evaluation of Step Evaluation Criteria for Step 1 Challenge Guidelines for TDP Panel members involved in Step Evaluation Criteria for Step 2 Challenge and Implementation Plan Guidelines for Step 3 TDP Panel Hearings Scoring System Evaluation Feedback to the Proposers Annex 1: Definitions of COST Action S&T Activities Annex 2: Proposal Display (Proposer view) Annex 3: COST Office Classification of Research Areas Annex 4: Action Participation Overview List of Tables Table 1: Categories of Action Objectives Table 2: List of Action S&T activities used as Main Milestones and Deliverables Table 3: Network of Proposers eligibility by COST Affiliation Category Table 4: Overview of COST Affiliation Categories Table 5: Areas of Socio-Economic Application (Basic versus Applied Research) Table 6: Evaluation Sections and Evaluation Criteria Table 7: Evaluation Sections and Evaluation Criteria for Step Table 8: Evaluation Sections and Evaluation Criteria for Step

3 List of Acronyms BMBS Biomedicine and Molecular Biosciences CMST Chemistry and Molecular Sciences and Technologies COST European Cooperation in Science and Technology CNC COST National Co-ordinator CSO Committee of Senior Officials DC Domain Committee ESR Early Stage Researchers ESSEM Earth System Science and Environmental Management ERA European Research Area EU European Union FA Food and Agriculture FP Framework Programme FPS Forests, their Products and Services ICT Information and Communication Technologies ISCH Individuals, Societies, Cultures and Health JAF COST CSO Executive Board (Legal, Administrative and Financial Affairs) MC Management Committee MPNS Materials, Physics and Nanosciences MoU Memorandum of Understanding R&D Research and Development RTD Research and Technological Development S&T Science and Technology TD Trans Domain TDP Trans Domain Proposals TUD Transport and Urban Development WG Working Group 1 Purpose of the Guidelines These guidelines provide a practical step-by-step guide of the COST TDP Pilot proposal evaluation and selection procedure for proposers and evaluators. These guidelines are only valid for proposals submitted to Trans-Domain Proposals (TDP) as of Open Call The present document COST Open Call Guidelines for TDP Pilot is available on the COST web-site: 2 Conflict of Interest COST strives to avoid conflicts of interest in its framework. Standard good practice in science funding schemes requires that any individual with an interest in a proposal for funding should not take part in the selection process. To ensure the bottom-up characteristics of an Action, the 3

4 proposition and execution of an Action should not be performed by any member of a body that has executive or advisory power over its assessment, management or evaluation. The COST Code of Conduct (COST doc 4160/10) establishes the general principles of COST for managing conflict of interest. In addition, in TDP Pilot all evaluators are asked to declare their non-conflict of interest and to notify COST Office in case any potential conflict arises during the evaluation. 3 Anonymity 3.1 Proposers Submitted Proposals are evaluated anonymously: details (i.e. name, institution) of the Network of Proposers are not disclosed to the evaluators. The following information regarding the Network of Proposers is made available to the evaluators of a COST Proposal: n Number of Proposers n Country & regional distribution of the Network of Proposers n Gender distribution of the Network of Proposers n Average number of years elapsed since PhD graduation of Proposers n Core Expertise of Network of Proposers: distribution by OECD Sub-Field of Science n Institutional distribution of Network of Proposers: Higher Education & Associated Organisations, Business Enterprises, Government and Intergovernmental Organisations, Private Non-Profit Organisations, Standards Organisations, None. For each category, further information is provided on the types of organisations involved. n Detailed information on institutions of affiliation: For Higher Education & Associated Organisations: sub-field of science of Department of affiliation; For Business Enterprises: Market sector and size (SME or Large); For Government and Intergovernmental Organisations: Level (International, EU, Central/Federal, Local); For Private Non- Profit/NGOs: Type (Charity; Advocacy/Membership Organisation; Trade or Professional Association; Other). Individuals who decide to join a Network of Proposers, agree to share their personal details with all other Proposers on the same Proposal. These details are: Name, Last Name, , Telephone, Home Page (if provided), Scientific Expertise, COST Category of Affiliation, Name of Institution of Affiliation, Doctoral Degree or Equivalent (Yes or No) and year of award of Degree. The COST Office and the COST National Coordinators have access, via e-cost, to the full identity of proposers, full content of proposals and outcomes of the evaluation. As described in the COST Code of Conduct (COST doc 4160/10), COST expects from all participants ethical 4

5 behaviour of actors involved in COST activities at all levels. As such, the identity of the proposers, content of proposals and evaluation outcomes must remain confidential. 3.2 Evaluators The individual marks and comments given by evaluators during the Open Call evaluation process will be kept anonymous. The average mark, relative ranking indication and comments for the submitted proposal will be made available to the Network of Proposers. The COST National Coordinators will have access, via e-cost, to the Name, Institution and e- mail of external experts from their countries invited to participate in the evaluation. As described in COST Code of Conduct (COST doc 4160/10), COST expects from all participants ethical behaviour of researchers involved in COST activities at all levels. As such, the identity of the evaluators must remain confidential. 4 European Commission Involvement European Commission Contact Persons will be granted access to all proposals and are encouraged to submit specific comments to the TD SO, who is responsible for conveying them to the TDP Panel. 5 Open Call Observers COST reserves the right to involve independent external experts as Open Call Observers, to assess and provide feedback on the TDP Pilot evaluation and selection procedure. 6 COST and the COST Open Call 6.1 The COST Framework COST is a unique means for European researchers to jointly develop their own ideas and new initiatives across all scientific disciplines through trans-european networking of nationally funded research activities. Based on a European intergovernmental framework for cooperation in science and technology, COST has contributed since its creation in 1971 to closing the gap between science, policy makers and society throughout Europe and beyond. COST s mission is to enable break-through scientific developments leading to new concepts and products and thereby contribute to strengthening Europe s research and innovation capacities. For more information on COST please visit: 5

6 6.2 About COST Actions Ever since COST was founded, it has been operating one main instrument, the COST Action. The Action is a science and technology network with a four-year duration, a minimum participation of five COST Countries, and is organised through a range of networking tools, such as workshops, conferences, training schools, short-term scientific missions (STSMs), and dissemination activities. COST Actions are: n Pan-European - the COST inter-governmental framework spans 36 countries; n Bottom-up - both in terms of topics and objectives proposed, as well as work organization; n Open - in terms of participation as Actions can grow in size throughout their lifetime; n Unique - as a platform to coordinate national research funding within a lightweight framework; n Interdisciplinary - bridging different research communities and building and expand multidisciplinary communities; n Future-Oriented Promoting actively the participation of the next generation of researchers; n Globally connected - international participants may join on the basis of mutual interest 2. COST Actions are widely recognised for their contribution to scientific and technical knowledge creation and dissemination as well as research training and exchanges. Many COST Actions pave the way towards successful projects in the EU Framework Programme. They engage in dissemination to policy makers and the general public and contribute to addressing problems of global societal relevance. COST Actions also contribute to widening pan-european participation and reinforce cooperation with COST Near Neighbour Countries. The participation of researchers from Near Neighbour Countries 3 is supported by COST. COST Actions are managed by a Management Committee (MC) which is composed of up to two representatives of each COST Country having accepted the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) of the Action. The MC decides upon all budget relevant questions, devises the general Action strategy and manages the organization of the Action s scientific and technological activities. The average budget depends on the number of COST Countries participating in the Action (for 19 Countries it is in the range of EUR per year). MC Members are nominated by the COST National Coordinators of the COST Countries they represent. COST Countries can join an Action anytime throughout its lifetime. 2 For more information please visit 3 For a complete list please visit: 6

7 Researchers can join a COST Action following the procedures explained in the COST web-site at: COST Actions are organized in Working Groups (WGs), whose members (WG Members) are usually MC Members and other Action participants, as nominated by the MC. Working Groups are the key structure of COST Actions, carrying out the work needed to achieve Action objectives in line with the Action Strategy defined by the MC. 6.3 COST Open Call COST invites researchers throughout Europe to submit proposals for research networks in a bottom-up fashion through a continuous Open Call. The two collection dates a year are announced on the COST Website. Following a thorough evaluation and selection process, the decision for funding a proposal is taken by the Committee of Senior Officials (CSO) within eight months of the collection date. Actions can expect to kick-off within three months thereafter. 6.4 The TDP Pilot Evaluation and Selection Procedure Proposal Submission The TDP Pilot evaluation and selection procedure is based on the submission of a single proposal consisting of four main sections 4 with a maximum length of about 15 pages: n Section A: Challenge (up to 3200 words, about 6 pages) This section describes the scientific/technological justification for the COST Action. n Section B: Added Value of Networking (up to 2100 words, about 4 pages) This section describes how the challenge will benefit from Networking Activities. n Section C: Milestones and Deliverables: contents and time frames (up to 1800 words, about 3 pages) This section describes what activities will be organized and the expected main outputs. n Section D: Action Structure and Participation (up to 1000 words, about 2 pages) This section describes the participation and internal organization of the Action. In short, sections A and B describe the scientific and technological content of the proposal, while sections C and D illustrate its implementation plan supporting the COST mission and criteria. Additional details on each section are provided in section 8.3 in this document. Proposal Evaluation and Selection The proposal is evaluated in 3 steps, the first two of which are conducted remotely: 4 The full list of Proposal sections and their official numbers are found in section 8 of these Guidelines. 7

8 n Step 1 - Challenge: This step is used to select the best challenges proposed in terms of scientific and technological soundness and timeliness and for which networking provides a clear added benefit to address the challenge. The evaluation of the Challenge and Added Value of Networking (sections A and B) is conducted by independent specialist experts; n Step 2 - Implementation Plan: This step aims at identifying the best Proposals that, in addition to a scientifically and/or technologically sound challenge and a clear benefit for networking, also present a coherent and feasible implementation plan. Sections C and D of the Proposal are evaluated by the TDP Panel (experts with broad interdisciplinary expertise) to ensure suitability for COST and reflect intergovernmental priorities; Domain Committee Members and external experts may also be invited by the TDP Panel as required. n Step 3 TDP Panel Hearings: The final step of the evaluation and selection procedure serves to evaluate the leadership potential, motivation and drive, and the organisational and communication skills of the proposers. It furthermore allows addressing the main criticisms received throughout the evaluation. The final selection of Proposals is performed by the TDP Panel. Similarly to the previous step, Domain Committee Members and external experts may also be invited by the TDP Panel as required. Additional details on each evaluation step are provided in section 9 in this document. The steps of the TDP Pilot evaluation and selection procedure are summarized in Figure 1 from the point of view of the proposer. Before Submission Deadline for Proposal Registration by Main Proposer Proposal is assigned unique reference code to invite Secondary Proposers Network of Proposers is being composed Proposal preparation Deadline for Proposal Submission (Collection Date) Week 0 Step 1 - Challenge - Results of Evaluation Week 8 Week 13 Step 2 - Implementation Plan - Results of Evaluation Consensus comment drafted by TDP Panel Invitation to TDP Panel Hearings for successful proposals Step 3 - TDP Panel Hearings Week 15 Week 18 + up to Week 30 Decision on Action funding by Committee of Senior Officials (CSO) Communication of funding decision to Proposers Figure 1: TDP Pilot Proposal Submission, Evaluation, Selection and Approval Process 5 5 The exact TDP Pilot calendar can be found at 8

9 7 What You Need to Know before Drafting a COST Action Proposal 7.1 Action Strategy and Structure Action Strategy COST Actions are networks open to researchers and stakeholders and they are set up to achieve specific objectives within predefined timespans (i.e. 4 years). These objectives define the collective knowledge creation, knowledge diffusion and knowledge application in the frame of the Action, and form the basis of the Actions Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs). Actions are bottom-up in two ways: their topics are selected by proposers; scientific management decisions are entrusted to their own Management Committees. They are open throughout their lifetime to new members and are adaptable in terms of internal organization and strategy. Thus, Actions are especially well-suited to pursue new ideas through collaborative efforts and/or to build communities around science and technology topics that have previously failed to gather the necessary critical mass. COST Actions do not fund research and require members to provide their own funding to achieve their research objectives. COST only funds networking activities by providing a set of COST-funded networking tools allowing to share knowledge and resources towards common objectives. COST networking tools comprise meetings (including workshops and other events), Short-Term Scientific Missions, Training Schools and dissemination activities. The rules applying to their funding are defined in the COST Vademecum. The majority of the activities needed for the achievement of Action objectives, however, rely on nationally- or institutionally-funded research projects and resources (e.g. employee time, institutional infrastructures and equipment). This allows COST Actions to leverage national and institutional funding towards efficient trans-european research cooperation. Annex 1 provides examples of activities that allow achieving Action objectives irrespective of their funding. COST also funds the coordination and decision-making meetings needed to plan and perform the Actions scientific and technological activities (i.e. Management Committee Meetings). Figure 2 gives a visual overview of Action activities and their relationship with COST and research funding. 9

10 Figure 2: COST Action activities by type. Only COST networking tools receive COST funding. Action S&T activities are defined within an Action Strategy decided by the COST Action Management Committee (MC), and implemented by MC and Working Group Members. The Action Strategy therefore defines a timeline, based on which Action S&T activities - linked to Action objectives - are planned and followed up. Action Structure The MC decides within the boundaries of general COST rules on the suitable Action Structure (number/type of Working Groups, specific roles, internal rules) to pursue the objectives proposed. The MC also decides on invitation and reimbursement of participants (WG Members and non-members like Invited Experts or other Occasional Participants) to the activities as needed to achieve the planned objectives. Action Participation is further defined and explained in the next section. 10

11 Action Budget and Administration Actions are funded via yearly Grant Agreements based on annual work and budget plans, detailing the activities 6 necessary to achieve the declared objectives as defined in the Action Strategy. 7.2 COST Categories of Objectives and Main Deliverables and Outputs Categories of Action Objectives As already mentioned COST Actions do not fund research and require members to provide their own funding to achieve their research objectives. COST only funds networking activities allowing sharing knowledge and resources towards common objectives. Hence, Action objectives can be generally classified in two kinds (see Table 1): A. Research Coordination Objectives: requiring a distribution of tasks among COST Action members to achieve specific outputs in terms of knowledge generation, diffusion, and development of applications: these objectives effectively turn COST Actions into trans-national teams and tap directly into the funding being coordinated; B. Community-building Objectives: needed to build critical mass of scientific communities to drive scientific progress, thereby contributing to the research competitiveness across all of Europe. These objectives are not necessarily tied to any short-term result, but rather translate into network features or types and levels of participation. Their specific value is considered during proposal evaluation, based on the needs of specific research communities on the topics proposed. These objectives also require proper inclusion and planning within the overall Action Strategy. Proposers are asked to specify the Categories of Action Objectives to reflect on which strategy the Action, if funded, aims to develop, and also to provide a general overview of such strategy to the evaluators. Please note that Table 1 lists the possible Categories of Action Objectives i.e. a general classification of the types of specific objectives the Action aims at pursuing not the Action objectives per se (to be described in Section A-Challenge). 6 For a full list of activities, please refer to Annex 1. 11

12 Table 1: Categories of Action Objectives A. Working as a pan-european team 1 Development of a common understanding/definition of the subject matter 2 Coordination of information seeking, identification, collection and/or data curation 3 Coordination of experimentation or testing 4 Comparison and/or performance assessment of theory/model/scenario/projection/simulation/narrative/methodology/technology/techniq ue 5 Development of knowledge needing international coordination: new or improved theory/model/scenario/projection/simulation/narrative/methodology/technology/techniq ue 6 Achievement of a specific tangible output that cannot be achieved without international coordination (e.g. due to practical issues such as database availability, language barriers, availability of infrastructure or know-how, etc.) 7 Input to stakeholders (e.g. standardization body, policy-makers, regulators, users) - excluding commercial applications 8 Input for future market applications (including cooperation with private enterprises) 9 Dissemination of research results to the general public 10 Dissemination of research results to stakeholders (excluding specific input in view of knowledge application, as per objective 7) B. Establishing, consolidating or widening a community 11 Around a topic of scientific and/or socio-economic relevance, allowing for knowledge exchange and the development of a joint research agenda beyond objectives 1 to Around a new or emerging field of research 13 Bridging separate fields of science/disciplines to achieve breakthroughs that require an interdisciplinary approach 14 Acting as a stakeholder platform or trans-national practice community (by area of socio-economic application and/or market sector) 15 Involving specific target groups (e.g. newly established research groups, early-stage researchers, the under-represented gender, teams from countries/regions with less capacity in the field of the Action) Considering the feasibility of implementing the Action strategy and the expected impact, up to 4 Categories of Action Objectives can be selected, only one of which can be under Category B Establishing, consolidating or widening a community. If the Proposal is funded, the Management Committee will be able to add, but not remove, categories of objectives, save for exceptional circumstances and with justified reasons. After COST Office review of the categories assigned, the objectives will bind the Action and will be used for Action management and monitoring purposes. 12

13 Main Deliverables and Outputs Categories of Action Objectives need to be clearly distinguished from their associated milestones and deliverables, which represent the concrete form of the solutions envisaged by the Action to address the scientific and technological challenge. Achieved objectives take the form of concrete outputs, for example an improved model (Objective Category 5) may be published in a peer-reviewed journal (output). It should be noted that many Objectives Categories (i.e. 9 to 15) also result in verifiable outputs. For example, a COST Action aiming at building a community bridging separate fields of science (Objective Category 13) may result in a COST Action where each Working Group counts a certain proportion of researchers from all involved disciplines (output). Milestones and Deliverables are of four kinds 7 : 1. Tacit knowledge: Knowledge skills and competences available through people who have acquired codified knowledge and know-how through study, instruction and experience. This includes the tacit knowledge embedded in communities fostered by COST e.g. inclusion of target groups in Working Groups, such as researchers in specific disciplines; successful completion of a set of Short-Term Scientific Missions. 2. Codified knowledge: Knowledge expressed through language (including mathematics) and thus capable of being stored on a physical support (i.e. transferrable knowledge) e.g. publications; patents, web-sites. 3. Technology: Knowledge embedded in artefacts more or less ready to use, such as machinery or software, new materials or modified organisms e.g. a prototype, a database. 4. Societal applications: use of any kind of knowledge (codified, tacit, technology) to perform specific tasks. To be performed within an Action, societal applications require the active participation of stakeholders like business enterprises, practitioners, regulators, users. If stakeholders are not involved, then societal applications mentioned in proposals may only be considered possible future impacts resulting from envisaged outputs, rather than direct Action outputs (e.g. use of a methodology developed by the Action by a community of practitioners not participating to the Action). Deliverables will be evaluated in the context of the objective they are meant to serve. Proposers should only list the main outputs associated with each Objective Category (minimum one, 7 European Commission Expert Group on Knowledge Transfer Metrics. (2009), p. 5. Metrics for Knowledge Transfer from Public Research Organisations in Europe - Report from the European Commission's Expert Group on Knowledge Transfer Metrics. Brussels: European Commission. Societal applications is added due to the fact that COST Actions may include organisations which apply the knowledge developed within the Action. 13

14 preferably only a few per category) by choosing from the list of Milestones and Deliverables. At this stage Proposers are not required to include all the activities to be performed. If the proposal is funded, these activities can be further developed as part of the Action Strategy in the course of the Action kick-off. Moreover, the Action Strategy can be adapted to needs during the running of the Action. A list of definitions for each Main Milestone and Deliverable is provided in Annex 1 of these guidelines. Table 2 contains the Main Milestones and Deliverables: any of the listed items can be either a milestone or a deliverable depending on the Action Strategy. Table 2: List of Action S&T activities used as Main Milestones and Deliverables. No. COST Action Proposal Main Milestones and Deliverables 1 Action S&T Meeting 2 Action Conference 3 Action Workshop 4 Training Schools 5 Short-Term Scientific Missions (STSM) 6 Joint Peer-Reviewed Publication Scientific Publication (including S&T study and excluding handbooks, guidelines and 7 best practices; excluding joint peer-reviewed publications) 8 Documents to be used as Input to Stakeholders 9 Book of Abstracts or Proceedings of COST Action Conference or Workshop 10 Handbook, Guidelines, Best practices 11 Unpublished Aspects of Knowledge Creation, including Experimentation and Testing 12 Stakeholders Outreach, including unwritten Inputs and Dissemination 13 Delivery of Written Input Necessary for Future Market Exploitation to Business Enterprises 14 Delivery of Written Input to a Stakeholder (excluding business enterprises) 15 Achievement of Specific Network Features in terms of WG Composition 16 Virtual Network: any web-based resource needed for work coordination among Action Members 17 Website 18 Production of Dissemination Material for Distribution 19 Production or Publication of Videos and other Multimedia Content 20 Development of Software 21 Database 22 Conference Attendance for Action Dissemination Purposes 14

15 23 Participation in Activities of Other Networks 24 Prototype, Demo or Tool 25 Market Exploitation by Action Member(s) 26 New Patent(s) held by Action Member(s) 27 Other IPR(s) held by Action Member(s) 28 Application for Framework Programme Funding 29 Application for Funding to Intergovernmental Programs or Agencies 30 Application for Funding to National Programs or Agencies 31 Input for the Formulation of Framework Programme Calls 32 Input to Other S&T Funding Schemes for the Formulation of Calls for Proposals 33 Creation of New Scientific Journals or New University Curriculum 34 Education and/or Training Material 35 Joint Student Supervision (at Master's or Doctoral Level) 36 Other Definitions of each item are given in Annex 1. As explained in the section on Proposal Submission, the same list is used for COST Proposal Main Milestones and Deliverables If the proposal is funded, the Main Milestones and Deliverables described in the proposal are turned into planned Action S&T activities and the Management Committee will be able to revise them as needed. Therefore, the Main Milestones and Deliverables are used for both Proposal evaluation purposes and as a basis to develop the Action Strategy if the Proposal is successful. 7.3 Action Participants Action Participants are divided in four main types depending on their status: 1. Management Committee (MC) Members: nominated by the COST National Coordinators, their mission is to participate in Action decision-making by representing their COST Country of nomination. They have voting rights within the Action MC. Proposers should be aware that should their proposal be funded COST National Coordinators may want to take into account special national priorities. Therefore there is no guarantee for nomination to the Management Committee. One year following the Action approval date, the MC will decide on further COST Country participation. Management Committee (MC) Observers: nominated by the JAF, after MC and DC approval, their mission is to observe Action decision-making on behalf of their institution of affiliation. They have no voting rights but they can participate in discussions related to MC decisions. This status is reserved for individuals affiliated with institutions based in Near Neighbour and International Partners Countries as well as European Commission, other EU Institutions and EU Agencies and European RTD Organisations. 15

16 2. Working Group (WG) Members: nominated by the Management Committee, their mission is to contribute to the achievement of Action objectives by coordinating their national/institutional work within the COST Action. All Management Committee Members and MC Observers are encouraged to also be Working Group Members. 3. Occasional Participants: They are invited by the Management Committee to participate to COST networking tools because their participation is deemed necessary for the achievement of Action Objectives. Occasional Participants comprise STSM and Training School Grantees, invited experts and all other attendees of Action events. Each status corresponds to a different mission within the Action and depends on the decision of a different COST Actor. MC Members, MC Observers and WG Members need to be nominated. Occasional Participants are involved ad hoc by an Action s MC as part of the Action Strategy. An overview table is provided in Annex The Network of Proposers A COST Action consists in the formation of a COST-supported network of researchers or other participants devoted to a specific scientific or technological topic. Since the Network of Proposers is a good indication of the initial interest in the Proposal and of its solidity, COST evaluators will have access to statistical information regarding the Network of Proposers to inform their task. The Network of Proposers must fulfil the following requirements: n A Proposal needs to be submitted by a Network of Proposers comprising at least 5 Proposers (one Main Proposer plus at least 4 Secondary Proposers) affiliated with legal entities based in at least 5 different COST Countries 8 and considered as COST Country Institutions as per the table 3 below. EC and EU Agencies, International Organisations and European RTD Organisations do not count as COST Country Institutions even if geographically based in COST Countries. n The Main Proposer acts as writer, coordinator and contact point for the COST Office, and is also in charge of inviting and accepting Secondary Proposers to the Network. n All Proposers must have a registered and up to date e-cost profile ( and specify their scientific expertise (see Annex 3) to be able to submit a Proposal. By joining or forming a Network of Proposer, a user accepts to share their personal data with the other members of the same Network. The data shared is listed in Section 3. 8 The full list of COST countries is available at: 16

17 Table 3 gives an overview of which individuals can be part of a Network of Proposers based on their institutional affiliation. The COST Affiliation Categories used therein are explained in Table 4. The following rules apply: n Individuals with at least one institutional affiliation cannot be considered independents. n Individuals affiliated with several institutions falling in different COST categories can choose the affiliation they wish to use for the Proposal. Table 3: Network of Proposers eligibility by COST Affiliation Category. Status Main Proposer Secondary Proposer Institutional Affiliation of Participant (COST category) Can be Can be COST Country YES YES Near Neighbour Country (NNC) NO YES International Partners Country (IPC) NO YES European Commission and EU Agencies YES YES European RTD Organisation YES YES International Organisation NO YES Independents (No Affiliation) NO NO Table 4: Overview of COST Affiliation Categories. COST Affiliation Category COST Country Near Neighbour Country International Partners Country Includes: Organisation Type n Government Organisations except Intergovernmental Organisations n Higher Education & Associated Organisations n Business Enterprises (even if multinational) n Private Non-Profit Organisations/NGOs (even if international) n Standards Organisations (even if international) Excludes: n All EU Institutions and Bodies n European RTD Organisations as defined below 17

18 European Commission and EU Agencies European RTD Organisation International Organisation n International Organisations even if geographically located in a COST, Near-Neighbour or International Partners Country For included organisations, assignment as COST Country, NNC or IPC depends on the geographical location of the organisation of the participant. The list of countries in each group can be found on the COST website. Includes all EU Institutions and Bodies. Includes only the following institutions: CERN, EMBL, ESA, ESO, ESRF, European XFEL, ILL, EFDA JET. Intergovernmental organisations whose members are countries, excluding European RTD Organisations. 18

19 8 How to Prepare and Submit a Proposal for a COST Action As mentioned in Section 6.4, the TDP Pilot is based on the submission of a single proposal and has a 3-step evaluation procedure. Please note that the proposal must meet the COST Eligibility Criteria and be registered before the Registration Deadline. Proposals need to be submitted before the Collection Date of the specific Call. Proposals must be registered and submitted via e-cost personal user profile 9 N.B.: Past experience in other Calls, show a tendency for proposers to register or submit on the hours before the public announced deadline and Collection Date. COST Office cannot be held responsible for lack of responsiveness of the IT systems on these high-traffic days and will not accept registration or submission of proposals past the deadlines. In all circumstances the main proposer is responsible for registering/submitting their proposal well before the deadline to have time to solve any problems. 8.1 Eligibility Criteria Eligibility of proposals is checked by the COST Office immediately after Proposal Registration and again after Proposal Submission. In addition, the proposal can be declared as non-eligible during any evaluation step in case any of the non-eligibility criteria is identified during the process. In such cases, Proposers are informed by the COST Office of the non-eligibility of their proposal with a justification of the decision. To be eligible for funding, COST Action Proposals must: 1. Not contain blank sections in any of the mandatory sections; 2. Respect word limits for each section; 3. Be written in English language; 4. Have a Network of Proposers with registered and up-to-date e-cost profiles from at least 5 COST Countries; 5. Address science and technology challenges only for peaceful applications; 6. Contain an explicit confirmation of understanding by Proposers that the proposed objectives need to be achieved using own R&D funding and resources and that the performance of nationally/institutionally funded activities is required (This is done in e- COST by ticking a box before the submission of the proposal); 7. Contain a confirmation of no conflict of interest (This is done in e-cost by ticking a box before submission of the proposal); 8. Neither be duplicate of ended or ongoing COST Actions nor of other proposals submitted in the same COST Open Call;

20 Furthermore, proposers should be aware of the scope for COST Actions. The evaluation criteria for the implementation plan (see section 9.3) seriously harm any chance for funding of proposals that: 9. Are not anonymous; 10. Propose the organization of single or disconnected events, like a conference or a conference series; and not the creation of a network with an envisaged 4-year lifetime; 11. Do not propose an open network. For example, pre-commit to specific Management Committee (MC) composition or state that the implementation is entrusted to a specific organization; the participants entrusted to these roles are decided after CNC nomination to the MC at the 1 st MC meeting. 12. Propose to use COST funds for research activities. Nonetheless, the proper coordination of activities not funded by COST is a requirement for the successful achievement of COST Action objectives and must therefore be foreseen. To facilitate the evaluation process, proposals that are evident cases of out of scope for COST can also be declared as non-eligible by the COST Office at any stage of the TDP Pilot process. 8.2 Proposal Registration Proposal Registration is the first step to be taken by a Main Proposer to submit a proposal. It is not part of the evaluation itself, but it is used by the COST Office for an early selection of evaluators. Each registered Proposal is assigned a unique Proposal reference code. Registered proposals not meeting formal or content-related eligibility criteria may be considered as ineligible (see section 8.1). Proposal registration is mandatory: proposals that are not registered on or before the given deadline can no longer be submitted to the respective Collection Date and are automatically transferred for evaluation to the following Open Call Collection Date. Proposal Registration consists in completing some mandatory fields. The mandatory fields to be completed in order to obtain a Proposal reference code are: n Title: the title of the proposal, which should describe at a glance what the proposal is about. The title has a limit of 12 words and can still be changed before submission; n Acronym: COST Actions often make use of acronyms, which are commonly used for quick reference. Only original acronyms, not in use by any other public or private entity or research group, regardless of whether they are part of the Network of Proposers, should be adopted. Acronyms can contain only capital letters and numbers and no symbols, except - n Initial Idea: a short abstract used to illustrate the challenge that the Action is proposing to address, the way in which this challenge will be overcome and the expected impact. A revised version of the text of this section will be used as a summary of the Action published in the COST web-site should the Action be approved. The Initial Idea has a limit of 250 words (about ½ A4 page); 20

21 n Areas of Expertise needed for Evaluation: (multiple choice selection) a list of research areas relevant to the proposal, to be chosen from six main fields of science and technology: natural sciences, engineering and technology, medical and health sciences, agricultural sciences, social sciences and humanities. A Trans-Domain Proposal (TDP), to be considered as such, should span at least two different science fields. n Key Words: These should exclusively refer to the scientific or technological content of the proposal, including techniques or methodologies used or developed, or R&T infrastructures involved. Keywords are comma separated and multiple words per keyword allowed. Generic keywords such as interdisciplinary, research coordination, training, science, networking as well as their combinations should be avoided has they bring no information to the Proposal Evaluation. TIPS and FAQs Don t underestimate this step: the information provided at this step is crucial for a successful proposal. It will allow COST Office to identify the most appropriate experts to evaluate your proposal. Carefully choose the areas of expertise: when selecting the Areas of Expertise needed for Evaluation, be aware that this will be the key information for experts preselection. COST Office will identify External Experts that have this expertise and are appropriate for your proposal. Be brief, clear and to the point: when drafting the Initial Idea, illustrate your ideas in a clear and concise manner. Explain briefly, what is the main Scientific/Technological Challenge you aim at addressing. How networking (in general, not your Action) may contribute to solving the challenge. No need to have a network formed: At this stage you do not need to have the Network of Proposers established. Only the Main Proposer needs to be registered. 8.3 Proposal Submission At this stage, Proposers must complete the template, with four mandatory text sections and one optional section for bibliographic references. Moreover, Proposers are required to specify general information through multiple choices in 2 sections Summary This section includes an overview of the proposal and includes information both provided at Proposal Registration and new information to be added: 21

22 Title: Pre-filled at proposal registration and can be edited until the Proposal is submitted; Acronym: Pre- filled at proposal registration and can be edited until the Proposal is submitted; Keywords: Pre- filled at proposal registration and can be edited until the Proposal is submitted; Type of Research: (multiple choice): This section is required to indicate whether the proposed Action contains elements of applied research and is aiming to address specific applications (see Table 5 below) or only involves curiosity-driven basic research. For curiositydriven basic research and if no specific application is targeted, Option 12 - 'General advancement of knowledge' must be selected. If a specific application (as part of applied research) is targeted, the main socio-economic area of application must be selected from the list. If several applications are explicitly targeted, the ones estimated to be deployed in a shorter time frame should be privileged. The classification of socio-economic objectives is based on the Nomenclature for the Analysis and Comparison of Scientific Programmes and Budgets (NABS) 10 developed by the OECD and endorsed by Eurostat 11, and allows COST to perform a more detailed impact analysis on the areas of applications addressed by Actions. Table 5: Areas of Socio-Economic Application (Basic versus Applied Research) Expertise 1 Exploration and exploitation of the earth 2 Environment 3 Exploration and exploitation of space 4 Transport, telecommunication and other infrastructures 5 Energy 6 Industrial production and technology 7 Health 8 Agriculture 9 Education 10 Culture, recreation, religion and mass media 11 Political and social systems, structures and processes 12 General advancement of knowledge (basic research) Multiple choice section (see Annex 3) describing the areas of expertise needed for the evaluation of the proposal. It is filled at proposal registration and cannot be edited after registration deadline. 10 Defence is excluded as an application because COST only supports peaceful applications. 11 Source: _2007&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntPcKey=&StrLayoutCode=HIERARCHIC" 22

23 8.3.3 Network In this section, the Main Proposer is able to invite the Secondary Proposers to form the Network of Proposers. 1. The Main Proposer is asked to introduce, one by one, the name and of the persons to invite. 2. Upon clicking on the envelop icon, an automatic message is sent to the invitees, who have the chance to accept or decline the invitation to join. By accepting to be part of a Network of Proposers the invitee accepts to share personal details with all other Proposers in the Network. The following details will be shown to all Proposers: Name, Last Name, , Telephone, Home Page (if provided), Core Scientific Expertise (Sub- Field of Science), COST Category of Affiliation, Name of institution of affiliation. Other personal data on the Network of Proposers will be used in anonymised and aggregated form to provide evaluators with information on the features of the Network of Proposers behind the Proposal. Such information is shown, in aggregated form, not anonymised, to all members of the Network of Proposers. At any time, the Main Proposer has access to the status of each person listed, as well as their institution details and COST affiliation category based on COST rules for proposal submission. The affiliation category is determined on the basis of the information on the institutional affiliation provided in the e-cost profile of each member of the Network of Proposers. When a person accepts to be part of a Network of Proposers, they are asked to select the institution of affiliation that is most relevant to the proposal. Please note that your proposal needs to have a Network of Proposers including at least 5 COST Countries to be eligible. Therefore, changes to the institutional affiliation of members of the Network of Proposers that are done before the submission of the proposal may affect the eligibility of the proposal. TIPS and FAQs Start forming the Network early on: make sure you start building your Network of Proposers well before the collection date of the Open Call. To be more effective: n Ask your colleagues to create/update their e-cost profile before you send the invitation. n Always send the invitation to the primary account (same used on e-cost) of your colleagues. n In case the invitation is not received by your colleagues, please ask them to check their spam folder. 23

24 n It the message is not in your colleagues spam folder, ask them to contact their IT department to set messages from as not spam in their institutional spam filters. Pay attention to eligibility criteria: carefully check section 7.4 of these guidelines for verifying the eligibility of different researchers, regarding their institutional (and country) affiliation Strategy Proposers need to give an overview of their foreseen strategy by selecting pre-defined Categories of Action Objectives. Moreover, it is requested to indicate the main deliverables and milestones envisaged at this stage in order to achieve the respective objective under each preselected category. This is a multiple choice section and for each category chosen, a new tab will appear: in each tab you will be able to select the main milestones and deliverables to be achieved to attain the related objective. After approval, a timeline will be added to this information, completing the Action Strategy. Categories of Objectives can be added after Action approval, but not removed. Also, Milestones and Deliverables can be yearly revised and changed according to the needs for actually achieving the Action Objectives. Again, please note these are Categories of Action Objectives i.e. a general classification of the types of specific objectives the Action aims at pursuing not the Action objectives per se. The Action specific objectives must be explained in the section Challenge. TIP This section aim is to give a general overview of what are the types of objectives pursued and what are the main deliverables and milestones of each objective. n Avoid being too exhaustive select up to 5 milestones and deliverables per objective as you need to explain your selection on Section C: Milestones and Deliverables: contents and time-frames. n The list can be completed after Action approval and during the progress of the Action. 24

25 8.3.5 Section A: Challenge The Network of Proposers should describe in this section which scientific and technological challenge(s) they would like to meet by creating a COST Action and explain why it is considered important (i.e. relevance and timeliness). This section is aimed at: n Describing and explaining the problem(s) that need(s) to be addressed. Background information needed to explain or to make a convincing case for the proposed challenge needs to be given here. n Stating the Action objectives (coherent with the Categories of Objectives previously selected). n Explaining why tackling such problems has an impact: the envisaged impact can be either on technology, codified and tacit knowledge or on society 12. Unless objective category 6 was selected ( Achievement of a specific tangible output that cannot be achieved without international coordination ), this section should exclusively explain the challenge, not the form that the solution will take. Proposers should make a case for the relevance and timeliness of proposed challenges based on expected impact. In this section of the Proposal, it is not required to address the specific need for a network, which is the subject of Section B: the focus should be exclusively on the challenge and its impact in scientific, technological and/or societal terms. This section will be reviewed in Step 1 of the evaluation procedure by external experts who are specialists in the areas of expertise required by the proposal. TIP In this section argue the case of the scientific/technological problem you wish to address with your Action. Focus on: n The main Action objective(s); n The potential impact of achieving the objectives; n The current state of the art and what are the developments needed in order to achieve the Action objectives. 12 Definitions of these concepts in section 7.2 COST Categories of Objectives and Main Deliverables and Outputs 25

26 8.3.6 Section B: Added Value of Networking This section should explain why and how the international coordination provided by COST would leverage human and physical resources not funded by COST, such as the time of researchers or the infrastructures used by Action Members. Proposers should in particular make a convincing case to explain: 1. Why the challenge cannot be met in the same way without international coordination; 2. How networking activities would help meet the challenge by leveraging resources that COST does not fund. Examples can be provided of how outputs would benefit from networking, but the focus should be on the added value of networking in relation to the overall challenges, not on the implementation. Details on milestones and deliverables, including the time frames and the means to achieve them are the subject of the next section. Action outputs and the solution of proposed challenges benefit from an added value of networking when in all likelihood similar results without a COST Action: A. Cannot be achieved; B. Can be achieved only in a longer time frame; C. Cannot be achieved at the same level of quality, scale or scope. Proposers should explain why the proposed challenges fall in any of the three categories above (A, B, C). For example, the Network of Proposers can state here the practical benefits brought by connecting specific research groups or stakeholders and their effect on the outputs of non- COST funded activities. It is important to keep in mind that COST does not provide research funding: COST Actions provide facilities to network nationally or otherwise-funded individuals and resources. If required, examples of outputs that cannot be appropriately achieved without networking can also be presented in this section of the Proposal. However, there is no need at this time to provide in-depth information on their implementation and time frame, which is the subject of Section C. The focus should be on making a conceptual case for addressing the proposed challenge within an international network with the features of a COST Action. This section will be reviewed in step 1 of the evaluation procedure by external experts who are specialists in the areas of expertise required by the proposal. TIP In this section focus on the benefits of networking for your proposed Action objectives. You can use examples of the activities you are planning but avoid going in detail (this is done in sections C and D). Note that the evaluation of the added value of networking is carried out by external 26

27 experts, who are experts in the areas you indicated at proposal registration and have general knowledge on networking activities. As such, they may not be familiar with COST specific networking tools Section C: Milestones and Deliverables: contents and time-frames This section illustrates the deliverables that correspond to the solution of the problems that were identified within the challenge proposed. It also describes the main milestones that will be used to show the progress of the Action and the features and timeframes of the deliverables that the Action should achieve within each selected objective category. In particular, the following aspects should be addressed: The type of milestones and deliverables needed to meet the challenge (see n Table 2 in section 7.2 for examples) should be clearly specified; n The means to achieve the milestones and deliverables; n Their envisaged time-frames. Evaluators will consider whether all envisaged outputs are: n Achievable within an Action s lifetime; n Feasible in terms of content; n Realistic in terms of time frame. For example, if you aim at developing a new model, then previously the Category of Objective 5 Development of knowledge needing international coordination: new or improved theory /model / scenario/ projection/ simulation/ narrative/ methodology/ technology/ technique was selected. In this section you should give additional information, specifying when the result is expected, how (e.g. consensus or mathematical formalization), in what form (e.g. publication) and when (e.g. after 3 years). Due to the fact that COST Action objectives can relate to inputs towards stakeholders, dissemination and community building, milestones and outputs can also refer to the achievement of specific network features (e.g. specific target groups in Working Groups like stakeholders, users, the under-represented gender, early stage researchers), or to the organization of events attended by specific stakeholders. This section should therefore provide details on plans to involve targeted groups and all relevant participants, both for membership and for dissemination. These should be relevant outputs required to meet the proposed challenge. TIP The aim of this section is make explicit the link between each of your objective (listed 27

28 on section A), its category (listed under Strategy) and the correspondent milestones and deliverables. The content of each deliverable should be explained. Give an approximate timeline for the different activities Section D: Action Structure and Participation Working Groups, Management, Internal Procedures This section should describe the Action organisation in terms of Working Groups and management structure that would best help the Action meet the proposed challenge. It should also include the plans for involving relevant stakeholders in the Action. It is required that the proposed Action organisation and management structure respect COST rules. In particular: n Management Committee (MC) Members are nominated by the COST Member Countries and can join the Action throughout its lifetime. The composition of the MC is not defined at Proposal stage; n Working Group (WG) Members and Occasional participations are decided directly by the Management Committee 13 ; n Working Groups and management structure can be adapted by the Management Committee of the Action during an Action s lifetime. More information can be found in sections 7.1 and 7.3 of these Guidelines. TIP Pay attention to the actual composition of the network of proposers: identify any shortcomings of this network, identify relevant stakeholders and provide a plan for the development of the network Bibliographic references This is an additional free text section to list relevant references on the topic of the proposal further supporting demonstration of awareness on the state of the art of the given field(s). The list of references is optional and is shown to the evaluators: however it is not assessed in the 13 Unlike MC Members, WG Members and Occasional Participants are not necessarily reimbursed for their participation in COST activities, as their reimbursement depend upon MC decision and is constrained by budget availability as well as by the rules set out in relevant articles of the COST Vademecum. 28

29 evaluation. In compliance with eligibility criterion 7 (see section 8.1), proposers should ensure that the bibliography submitted respects the anonymity of the proposal. 8.4 Proposal Style-Guide As parts of the proposal will be used in the preparation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) of the Action, if funded, the following items should be checked to facilitate the preparation of the draft MoU. n Language and Spell check; n Clarity and comprehensibility; n Presenting the text in a logical way, avoiding unnecessary repetition between the different sections; n Respecting the word limits; n Use of capital letters for COST-specific and Action-related expressions. A non-exhaustive list: Action, Action Chair, Management Committee, Working Group, STSM (Short-Term Scientific Mission), Training School, Steering Group; n Explaining all acronyms, including those commonly used in the Framework Programme context; n Use of "Europe" or "COST Countries" when referring to the overall geographical scope of COST. "European Union" or "EU Member States" should only be used to refer to the EU as a player ("EU legislation", "EU programmes", "EU policies" etc) or when only EU Member State(s) need to be explicitly mentioned, excluding COST Countries not members of EU; n Use of "framework" or "scheme" when referring to COST (COST is an intergovernmental framework, not an "EU instrument", although it is funded by the Framework Programme); n No mentioning of individual scientists, proposing institutes or proposing organisations; n Avoiding pronouns such as I, we ; rather use the Action ; n Avoiding expressions such as planned or proposed when referring to the Action; rather use aims at, will, etc.; n Avoiding overstatements regarding the potential impact of the Action; Note that the e-cost IT tools do not allow embedding figures and graphs in your proposal. Tables can be used by copying/pasting from a text editor, although you should make sure that their layout is properly displayed in the generated pdf. 29

30 9 How COST Proposals are Evaluated and Selected The TDP Pilot Evaluation and Selection Procedure was developed based in three core principles: excellence, fairness and transparency towards the research communities. The TDP Panel is responsible to assure that these principles are observed throughout all procedure. The TDP Panel is composed of interdisciplinary nationally nominated experts (TDP Panel Members), two Vice-Chairs and one Chair, appointed by the presidency of the CSO. Under no circumstance the proposers should contact the TDP Panel regarding their proposal. Any attempt to do so may lead to immediate exclusion of the proposal from the procedure. The evaluation procedure is carried out in three steps: Step 1 - Challenge: Independent specialist experts evaluate remotely section A and B of the proposal, which illustrate the Challenge and Added Value of Networking; the topranked proposals are considered for further evaluation. Step 2 - Implementation Plan: The TDP Panel evaluate remotely section C and D of the proposal to ensure that the scientific and technological challenge and implementation plan are suitable for COST and reflect intergovernmental priorities. Domain Committee Members and external experts may also be invited as evaluators in this step if necessary. The proposers of the top-ranked proposals are invited to present the proposal at the TDP Panel Hearings. The list of proposals to be invited is established at a consensus meeting by the TDP Panel. Step 3 TDP Panel Hearings: at the Hearings meeting, the TDP Panel decides on the Proposals to be recommended for funding. At this stage, the capacity of managing a COST Action is evaluated. As such, the outcome of the previous steps and the overall quality of the oral presentation and discussion given by the Main Proposer are taken into account. Similarly to the previous step, Domain Committee Members and external experts may also be invited by the TDP Panel if necessary. In Step 1 and 2, the evaluation process consists of commenting, marking (i.e. assigning a score) and ranking the proposals submitted at the specific collection date. Evaluators comment and mark using the information provided by the Main Proposer, as well as anonymised information on the Network of Proposers 14. The e-cost Open Call tool produces the ranking based on the evaluations received. On the basis of this information, the TDP Panel decides on the amount of proposals selected for further evaluation. 14 This information is generated using the Proposers; e-cost profiles. 30

31 The honorarium for remote evaluation for external experts is 50 EUR per assigned and evaluated proposal. The evaluation is organized in four sections (henceforth referred to as Evaluation Sections) and 14 Evaluation Criteria: n Section A - Features of the Challenge and Type of Impact : evaluators consider the proposed challenge; n Section B - Added Value of Networking : evaluators consider if a COST Action on the proposed challenge is needed; n Section C - Suitability for COST : evaluators consider the strategy and structure and whether the contents are suitable for the COST framework; n Section D - Foreseen Participation : evaluators are asked to consider the Network of Proposers and the plans to network with relevant participants. Table 6 below gives an overview of the Sections and Evaluation Criteria. Table 6: Evaluation Sections and Evaluation Criteria. ID Title Section A.1 Features of the Challenge Criterion 1 A.1.1 State of the Art Criterion 2 A.1.2 Relevance and Timeliness Criterion 3 A.1.3 Challenge Feasibility Section A.2 Type of Impact Criterion 4 A.2.1 Risk Level Criterion 5 A.2.2 Scientific and/or Societal Impact Criterion 6 A.2.3 Timeframe Section B Added Value of Networking Criterion 7 B.1 In Relation to the Challenge Criterion 8 B.2 In Relation to Existing Efforts Section C Suitability for COST Criterion 9 C.1 Anonymity Criterion 10 C.2 Scope for COST Actions Criterion 11 C.3 Action Structure Suitability Criterion 12 C.4 Feasibility of Activities Section D Foreseen Participation Criterion 13 D.1 Network of Proposers Criterion 14 D.2 Plans to Involve Relevant Participants 31

32 9.1 Guidelines for External Experts involved in the evaluation of Step 1 As described, the core principles of this proposal evaluation and selection procedure are: excellence, fairness and transparency towards the research communities. COST requests you to strictly adhere to these principles. Excellence: Use your best scientific judgment to evaluate the proposals. You were selected based on your scientific background, expertise and experience relevant to the subject of the proposal. Your main task is to provide a comment and mark against the scientific soundness of the proposal, its potential impact and the added value of the networking to address the challenge proposed. Fairness: Make sure to avoid any conflict of interest. In case it arises during the evaluation process, the COST Office must be informed immediately. Get familiar with these guidelines, in particular the evaluation criteria (see section 9.2) and the scoring system (see section 9.6) before starting your evaluation If you identify a breach of any the eligibility criteria listed in section 8.1, before proceeding with the evaluation please contact the COST Office at tdp@cost.eu. Transparency: Provide the proposers a clear and informative comment. Avoid general sentences, but rather provide constructive feedback and examples to back your comments. For example, if you mark a good (The proposal satisfies the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary.), make sure you give examples of improvements needed. TIPS n Make sure to get acquainted with the scoring system (see section 9.6) before starting your evaluation. n Draft your comments having in mind the proposer as recipient; Your comments will be transmitted to the proposers without editing from the COST Office. n Your comments should be strictly related to the specific evaluation criteria. Avoid comments on the organization of the Action and on the Network of Proposers if the proposal is successful, this is evaluated by the TDP Panel at the next step of the evaluation process. 9.2 Evaluation Criteria for Step 1 Challenge The first step of the evaluation and selection procedure covers the first two sections of the proposal, namely the Challenge (Section A) and the Added Value of Networking (Section B). 32

33 This section provides detailed guidance on the comments expected from evaluators and on the evaluation criteria to be used for marking summarised in Table 7. Table 7: Evaluation Sections and Evaluation Criteria for Step 1 Type ID Title Section A.1 Features of the Challenge Criterion 1 A.1.1 State of the Art Criterion 2 A.1.2 Relevance and Timeliness Criterion 3 A.1.3 Challenge Feasibility Section A.2 Type of Impact Criterion 4 A.2.1 Risk Level Criterion 5 A.2.2 Scientific and/or Societal Impact Criterion 6 A.2.3 Timeframe Section B Added Value of Networking Criterion 7 B.1 In Relation to the Challenge Criterion 8 B.2 In Relation to Existing Efforts No. Description of Evaluation Sections and Criteria Scoring system A.1 FEATURES OF THE CHALLENGE This section assesses the challenge put forward by the Network of Proposers based on a range of challenge features (e.g. relevance and timeliness of the challenge). Please provide a comment and a mark on the questions below. A.1.1 A.1.2 State of the Art Comment: Does the Proposal show a good understanding of the state-of-theart? What are the main strengths and weaknesses of this section? Mark: Based on your comment, please rate how the proposal addresses the state-of-the-art. Relevance and Timeliness Comment: Given the current state of the art: a. Is the challenge relevant? If not, why? b. Is it the right time to tackle the proposed challenge? Mark: Based on your comment, please assess how relevant and timely challenge proposed is. [ ] Fail [ ] Poor [ ] Fair [ ] Good [ ] Very Good [ ] Excellent [ ] Fail [ ] Poor [ ] Fair [ ] Good [ ] Very Good [ ] Excellent 33

34 A.1.3 Challenge Feasibility Comment: Is the challenge feasible? In other words, is it reasonable to assume that the proposed challenge can be tackled by a network or is the challenge too ambitious? If too ambitious, what are the main constraints for the feasibility of the challenge? Mark: Based on your comment, please assess the feasibility of the challenge proposed by the use of networking activities in a 4-year time frame. [ ] Fail [ ] Poor [ ] Fair [ ] Good [ ] Very Good [ ] Excellent A.2 TYPE OF IMPACT This section assesses the challenge put forward by the Network of Proposers based on the impact evaluators expect from tackling the challenge. Please provide a comment and a mark on the questions below. A.2.1 A.2.2 A.2.3 Risk Level Comment: What is the level of expected return versus the level of uncertainty in terms of potential impacts? Mark: Based on your comment, please assess how well the Proposal succeeds in putting forward a challenge with a convincing risk/return trade-off. Convincing means that the trade-off expected is not high risk/low gain or low risk/low gain. Scientific and/or Societal Impact Comment: What are the potential impacts of meeting the proposed challenge, in terms of knowledge (written and unwritten, personal and collective) and/or in terms of societal impacts? Mark: Based on your comment, please assess how well the proposal succeeds in putting forward a convincing case in terms of possible impacts. Timeframe Comment: Can impacts be expected in the short term or the long term? Even if the impacts are foreseen in the long term, is there a sufficiently well-argued case for tackling this challenge now? Mark: Based on your comment, please assess how well the timeframes for expected impacts support the case to tackle the proposed challenge. [ ] Fail [ ] Poor [ ] Fair [ ] Good [ ] Very Good [ ] Excellent [ ] Fail [ ] Poor [ ] Fair [ ] Good [ ] Very Good [ ] Excellent [ ] Fail [ ] Poor [ ] Fair [ ] Good [ ] Very Good [ ] Excellent 34

35 No. Description of Evaluation Sections and Criteria Scoring System B ADDED VALUE OF NETWORKING This section assesses the added value of networking, which is defined as the actual need of networking to adequately meet the challenge. There is added value of networking if, without the COST framework and in all likelihood, the envisaged challenge: A. Cannot be achieved; B. Can be achieved only in a longer timeframe; C. Cannot be achieved at the same level of quality, scale or scope. Please provide a comment and a mark on the questions below. B.1 In Relation to the Challenge Comment: Is there a well-argued case on how a network would actually and practically help meeting the proposed challenge specifically by coordinating the work of different pan-european research groups and/or stakeholders, keeping in mind the above definition of added value of networking? Mark: Based on your comment, please assess how well the Proposal succeeds in building a convincing case for the added value of networking to tackle the proposed challenge. B.2 In Relation to Existing Efforts Comment: Is networking needed given the current scientific/technological landscape in terms of existing projects and networks? Mark: Based on your comment, please assess how well the Proposal is successful in identifying a challenge for which networking is needed in relation to existing efforts. 9.3 Guidelines for TDP Panel members involved in Step 2 [ ] Fail [ ] Poor [ ] Fair [ ] Good [ ] Very Good [ ] Excellent [ ] Fail [ ] Poor [ ] Fair [ ] Good [ ] Very Good [ ] Excellent The TDP Panel is composed by scientists nominated by the COST member countries or appointed by the CSO. They have a trans-disciplinary background and experience in different roles in COST or other EU research programmes. As described, the core principles of this proposal evaluation and selection procedure are: excellence, fairness and transparency towards the research communities. COST requests TDP panel members to strictly adhere to the same principles. For preparing this step of the evaluation, the COST Office provides the TDP Panel with internally agreed instructions and guidelines. However, the TDP Panel members are requested to evaluate strictly against the evaluation criteria listed below and inform the COST Office of any potential conflict of interest arising during the evaluation process, including reporting any contact from proposers. 35

36 9.4 Evaluation Criteria for Step 2 Challenge and Implementation Plan In this step, sections C and D are evaluated. The summary of the evaluation criteria considered in this step is illustrated in Table 8 below. Table 8: Evaluation Sections and Evaluation Criteria for Step 2 ID Title Section C Suitability for COST Criterion 9 C.1 Anonymity Criterion 10 C.2 Scope for COST Actions Criterion 11 C.3 Action Structure Suitability Criterion 12 C.4 Feasibility of Activities Section D Foreseen Participation Criterion 13 D.1 Network of Proposers Criterion 14 D.2 Plans to Involve Relevant Participants No. Description of Evaluation Sections and Criteria Scoring System C SUITABILITY FOR COST This Evaluation Section aims at assessing the Proposal based on a range of criteria of suitability of the Proposal and of the proposed Action for the COST Framework (e.g. network openness or proposed Action structure). Please provide a comment and a mark on the questions below. C.1 Anonymity Comment (not mandatory): To be eligible, the proposal should not [ ] Fail [ ] Poor contain any reference to the names and institutions of the proposers, [ ] Fair nor details that can easily point evaluators to the identity of the [ ] Good proposers and their institutions. If proposers can be identified, you can provide details by leaving a comment. [ ] Very Good Mark: To what extent does the proposal satisfy the anonymity [ ] Excellent requirement? If the Proposal is not anonymous, mark Fail. If the Proposal is anonymous, mark Excellent. Otherwise, if the Proposal is partially anonymous, mark Poor, Fair, Good or Very Good depending on the type and severity of the anonymity breach that you detect. 36

37 C.2 Scope for COST Actions Comment (not mandatory): To be eligible, the proposal must plan for: n The creation of a network with an envisaged 4-years lifetime and with milestones and deliverables linked to common objectives, not the organization of single or disconnected events, like a conference or a conference series; n The creation of open networks: Proposals cannot foresee a limited participation of individuals selected only by the Management Committee or of pre-existing networks; n The use of COST funds only to fund networking activities and not research efforts: COST Action Members and occasional participants are required to have their own research funding. If any of the above criteria is not satisfied, please leave a comment specifying why. Mark: Does the proposal satisfy all the above-mentioned eligibility criteria? If one or more of the criteria are not satisfied, mark Fail, if the respect of the criteria is unclear, use the other marking options. C.3 Action Structure Suitability Comment: Please assess the suitability of proposed Action Structure to meet the challenge. The Action Structure comprises the Action s internal bodies (e.g. Working Groups, Core Group, STSM Manager and Committee, Dissemination manager, Editorial Board, etc.) and procedures (e.g. on requirements for specific positions or on the invitation of occasional participants). Is the Action structure suitable to meet the challenge? Can the proposed structure be improved? Mark: Based on your comment, please assess how the Proposal manages to present a suitable Action Structure to meet the proposed challenge. [ ] Fail [ ] Poor [ ] Fair [ ] Good [ ] Very Good [ ] Excellent [ ] Fail [ ] Poor [ ] Fair [ ] Good [ ] Very Good [ ] Excellent 37

38 C.4 Feasibility of Activities Comment: COST Actions only fund networking activities. However, Actions network human and physical resources that can be used in a coordinated way to achieve the objectives of the Action. It is therefore normal for proposals to include nationally or otherwise-funded milestones and deliverables, as long as these benefit directly from the coordination and exchanges carried out by the Action. Both COSTfunded and otherwise funded milestones and deliverables should be realistically achievable within a 4-year time frame. Can the proposed main milestones and deliverables realistically result from collective efforts and from the coordination of local efforts provided within a COST Action? Are the proposed main milestones and deliverables achievable within a 4-year time frame? Mark: Based on your comment, please assess if the Proposal succeeds in putting forward feasible activities. [ ] Fail [ ] Poor [ ] Fair [ ] Good [ ] Very Good [ ] Excellent No. Description of Evaluation Sections and Criteria Scoring System D FORESEEN PARTICIPATION Please provide a comment on the question below. After saving your comment, you will be asked to provide a mark based on your comment. This Evaluation Section aims at assessing the features of the Network of Proposers and the suitability of plans to achieve the involvement of participants needed to meet the proposed challenge. D.1 Network of Proposers Comment: A breakdown of the Network of Proposers is provided in terms of core area of expertise, institutional affiliation, age, gender and geographical distribution. Does the Network of Proposers have satisfactory features for a starting Action, keeping in mind that Actions can grow throughout their whole lifetime? Mark: Based on your comment, please assess how suitable are the features of the Network of Proposers for a starting Action. [ ] Fail [ ] Poor [ ] Fair [ ] Good [ ] Very Good [ ] Excellent 38

39 D.2 Plans to Involve Relevant Participants Comment: If required by the chosen challenge, this section can include details on the plans to involve targeted groups both as full members and for dissemination purposes. Are plans to involve relevant participants suitable to meet the challenge? Mark: Based on your comment, please assess the suitability of the plans in the Proposal to involve relevant participants in order to meet the challenge. [ ] Fail [ ] Poor [ ] Fair [ ] Good [ ] Very Good [ ] Excellent 9.5 Guidelines for Step 3 TDP Panel Hearings The TDP Panel includes a TDP Panel Chair and TDP Panel members with broad interdisciplinary background and nominated by COST National Coordinators (i.e. experts from COST Domain Committees and the Trans-Domain Proposals Standing Assessment Board). At the Hearings, the TDP Panel decides the final ranking and the number of proposals to suggest for funding based on the following aspects demonstrated by the Main or Secondary Proposer invited during the presentation: n Leadership potential n Motivation and drive n Organisational skills n Communication skills n Understanding of COST tools and budget implications n Response to comments received during the evaluation process The Main Proposer is asked to give a 15 minute presentation (typically supported by electronic slides) to the TDP Panel, followed by a 15 minute Q&A session. For well justified reasons, the Main Proposer can be accompanied or substituted by a Secondary Proposer. The COST Office does not disclose information to proposers on the number of proposals that are presented at the TDP Panel Hearings and on the ranking of their proposals after the previous steps. The role of the TDP Panel is to make a recommendation to the CSO, who will decide on the approval and funding of the Actions. 9.6 Scoring System The TDP pilot introduces a harmonized scoring scale for all the evaluation criteria. The definition of the marks is the same for all questions to be answered by the evaluators. 0 = Fail. The proposal fails to satisfy the criterion under examination or does not follow COST eligibility requirements (i.e. cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information). 1 = Poor. The criterion is satisfied in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses. 39

40 2 = Fair. While the proposal broadly satisfies the criterion, there are significant weaknesses. 3 = Good. The proposal satisfies the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary. 4 = Very good. The proposal satisfies the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible. 5 = Excellent. The proposal fully satisfies all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor. The maximum mark that a Proposal can receive in Step 1 is 40 (i.e. if it receives a mark of Excellent in all 8 evaluation sections). The maximum mark that a Proposal can receive in Step 2 is 30 (i.e. if it receives a mark of Excellent in all 6 evaluation sections). Thus, the maximum mark that a proposal can receive after Step 1 and 2 is 70. The scoring system is not used at the TDP Panel Hearings (step 3), the outcome of which is a final ranking and consensus comment on all selected proposals. 9.7 Evaluation Feedback to the Proposers The result of the evaluation is made available to all the Proposers, after each step of the evaluation process, as described in Figure 1. In Step 1, following the delivery of evaluators comments and marks, the Network of Proposers receives in e-cost: the aggregated comments, the average mark and relative ranking indication for the Proposal. Please note that evaluators comments are made available in aggregated form because the evaluators do not convene for a consensus meeting. As a result, the comments may contain some discrepancies. This is normal: the evaluation process allows different views to be expressed and considered. The COST Office does not disclose the identity of evaluators and the views expressed by the evaluators should not be understood as official COST Office views or positions on the proposals submitted. Evaluators are free to express their views, based on their expertise and within the limits of the guidelines provided. In Step 2, following the delivery of evaluators comments and marks, a dedicated meeting of the TDP Panel takes place with the objective of drafting a consensus comments based on the combined evaluations of Step 1 and 2. The consensus comments, including the average mark and relative ranking indication of the Proposal are made available to the Network of Proposers through e-cost. The outcome of the TDP Panel Hearings (step 3) is made available to the proposers after the decision on Action funding by the COST CSO. Annexes 40

41 Annex 1: Definitions of COST Action S&T Activities 15 COST Action S&T activities are a mix of COST (co-)funded or COST-coordinated activities (not funded by COST). 1 Action S&T Meeting 2 Action Workshop These include Working Group meetings and other horizontal meetings mainly between Action Members. The purpose of Working Group Meetings is to coordinate pre-funded research by allowing the Action Members (MC and/or WG members) to discuss their progress and to identify or make progress on efforts needed in order to achieve the objectives of the Action. The aim of other horizontal group meetings is to organize and/or implement Action milestones and deliverables. E.g.: STSM Committee Meetings are responsible for proposing methodologies and carrying the selection of STSMs grantees; an Outreach group can be responsible for the implementation of the Action Strategy towards a dissemination objective; or an Editorial group may be responsible for editing a handbook. The goal of a COST Action Workshop depends on the Action Objective(s) it is linked to. A COST Action Workshop: - May be a standalone event or be coupled with other activities, like conferences, industry events, other networks meetings. - Can be open to the wider research community and other stakeholders or be reserved to Action participants only, depending on the objective. - The format and program outline are defined by the Action in an adaptable way: it may have the format of a mini conference or it can be exclusively made of discussion panels or round tables, or any other that the Action MC finds suitable. Procedure: The MC nominates an Organizing Committee, which is responsible for the organization of the event. A Scientific Committee may or may not be nominated. Like for COST Action Conferences, in case the COST Action Workshop is open to the wider community, the Announcement must also be extensively disseminated in the most relevant media to the targeted audience. 15 At Proposal stage, COST Actions S&T activities are called Main Milestones and Deliverables, but the list and definition is the same. In the online submission template, these activities are organized for simplicity under 6 headings: (1) S&T Coordination; (2) S&T Output; (3) S&T Event or Meeting; (4) Written document, Publication; (5) Contacts with Stakeholders; (6) Other. 41

42 3 Action Conference 4 Training Schools Short-Term 5 Missions (STSM) Scientific A COST Action Conference is a scientific conference organized by a COST Action for researchers to present, discuss and disseminate their work. COST Action Conferences: - Provide an important channel for exchange of information between researchers. - Are usually composed of various presentations and may include keynote speakers. - May feature panel discussions, round tables or workshops. - The work presented may be published as papers in selected journals (special issues); as conference proceedings or in a shorter form as a book of abstracts. - Are open to the participation of any self-funded participant (i.e. any researcher or stakeholder outside the COST Action). - Are an opportunity to network. The Management Committee of an Action nominates amongst the Action members a Scientific Committee and an Organising Committee. COST Action Conferences can also be co-organized with a scientific society or by a group of researchers with an interest common to the action objectives. In this case, MC and WG members of the Action must be both in the Scientific and Organising Committee. The meeting is announced by way of a "Call for Papers" or a Call for Abstracts, which lists the meeting's topics and tells prospective presenters how to submit their abstracts or papers. At the COST Action Conference Announcement, relevant information on organization details: venue (city, country); dates of the conference; program outline are available to researchers. COST Action Conference announcement must be extensively disseminated. Program, speakers and media used to advertise the COST Action Conference must be in accordance with the objectives and follow the COST guidelines for communication. The purpose of a Training School is to disseminate knowledge developed within the Action to targeted groups defined within Action objectives (e.g. Early Stage Researchers; stakeholders such as users, public officials). Short-Term Scientific Missions (STSM) are exchange visits aimed at strengthening the existing networks and foster collaborations by allowing Action Members or Occasional Participants to visit an institution, laboratory or any organization in another Action Party or a formally approved institution based on NNC or IPC. An STSM must specifically contribute to the achievement of one or more objectives of the Action (only objective categories 1 to 8). By nature, STSMs are always considered to contribute to a category B objective and assessed as such at Action assessment. In general, STSMs aim at allowing a grantee to learn a new technique or gain access to specific instruments and/or methods not available in their own institution; or to gather and analyse data and to produce a joint publication or write a joint research proposal. The specific goals of an STSM depend on the Action objective(s) it is linked to. 42

43 Joint Publication Peer-Reviewed Scientific Publication (including S&T study and excluding handbooks, guidelines and best practices; excluding joint peer-reviewed publications) Documents to be Used as Input to Stakeholders Book of Abstracts or Proceedings of COST Action Conference or Workshop Handbook, Guidelines, Best practices Unpublished Aspects of Knowledge Creation, Including Experimentation and Testing Stakeholders Outreach, Including Unwritten Inputs and Dissemination Delivery of Written Input Necessary for Future Market Exploitation to Business Enterprises Delivery of Written Input to a Stakeholder (excluding business enterprises) Publication needed to achieve Action objectives and authored by at least two Action members affiliated with institutions based in at least two different Action countries. Publication needed to achieve Action objectives and authored by at least two Action members affiliated with institutions based in at least two different Action parties. Documents targeted at specific stakeholders containing advice developed by the Action. Example: Position Papers, Recommendations. COST Office does not lobby or provide official support to these documents. Proceedings are part of the reporting and means of verification of the COST Action Conference and Workshops and can also be used for dissemination purposes. Reference work or collection of instructions intended to provide ready reference for the application of knowledge developed within the Action. Contribution or development of new or improved theory/model/simulation/methodology/technology/technique/scenario/pr ojection; experimentation; testing, survey performance. This activity consists of meetings whose purpose is to reach-out to stakeholders (business enterprises, standards organizations, policy makers, the government sector, users and practitioners) who are not Action Members to: - Integrate them in to the knowledge creation process, or - Disseminate Action knowledge. Activities involving stakeholders that are members of the Action are not part of this definition. The definition includes the participation to meetings, events or committees not organized by the Action as well as organization of stakeholder events by the Action. All unwritten input to stakeholders involved in knowledge application also falls under this category. Written input to one or more commercial enterprises (unwritten input should be classified as Stakeholders Outreach) Sending of a document to a standardisation organization, a public sector body (e.g. ministry, regulatory or executive agency), an NGO or to end users or practitioners. Please note that COST Office does not lobby or provide official support to these documents. 43

44 15 16 Achievement of Specific Network Features in terms of WG Composition Virtual Network: any webbased resource needed for work coordination among Action Members 17 Website Production of Dissemination Material for Distribution Production or Publication of Videos and other Multimedia Content 20 Development of Software 21 Database Conference Attendance for Action Dissemination Purposes Participation to Activities of Other Networks 24 Prototype, Demo or Tool Market exploitation by Action Member(s) New Patent(s) Held by Action Member(s) Network features can serve any category B objective and also objectives 7 and 8. Network features refer to Action membership or participation in terms of, for example, sector of employment, expertise, gender, age, geographical area. Any web-based resource serving categories of objectives 1 to 8. Environment for communication between Action Members and/or other stakeholders. Websites are the public face of the COST Actions and are used as a tool for communication towards the general public. They serve objectives in categories from 9 to 17 and aim at raising public awareness of the Action themes and disseminate results. They contain information on how to join, the planned activities (especially open events). Links to discussion fora on the Action are also welcome. Creation of virtual networks is very welcome by COST, but this should be done using already established (and free of charge) social networks. Leaflets, posters, and other means for physical distribution of information on the Action. Videos for disseminating the Action and its achievements or used to coordinate pre-funded research. For example, videos showing a specific technique to coordinate experiments in different labs. Software development for dissemination activities (e.g. a videogame) or coordination of research (e.g. scheduling and organizing experiments). Database development falls under the Database category. A database is an organized collection of data in digital form. Databases are considered part of development of research and are therefore not eligible for funding by COST. Attending meetings or conferences not organised by the COST Action when relevant for the Action objectives, either to disseminate the Action s activities, or collect information to be further disseminated amongst the Action Members Participation to events organised by other networks when relevant for the Action objectives, either to disseminate the Action s activities, or collect information to be further disseminated amongst the Action s members; or coordinate with the external network. Knowledge embedded in artefacts more or less ready to use, such as machinery or software, new materials or modified organisms. Direct exploitation of results achieved by the Action for commercial purposes by one or more Action Members or their institutions. A patent is a form of legal monopoly which governments grant in return for public disclosure of ideas. This activity refers to the filing of a patent by one or more Action Members as part of the achievement of Action objectives. 44

45 Other IPR(s) Held by Action Member(s) Application for Framework Programme Funding Application for Funding to Intergovernmental Programs or Agencies Application for Funding to National Programs or Agencies Input for the Formulation of Framework Programme Calls Input to Other S&T Funding Scheme for the Formulation of Calls for Proposals Creation of New Scientific Journal or New University Curriculum Education and/or Training Material Joint Student Supervision (at Master's or Doctoral Level) 36 Other Copyright, trademarks. This activity refers to the creation of intellectual property by one or more Action Members as part of the achievement of Action objectives. Submission of an EU Framework Programme proposal by a consortium of at least 5 Action members of at least 5 Action countries, using knowledge created within the Action. Submission of a proposal to an intergovernmental programs or agency by a consortium of at least 2 Action members from at least 2 Action countries, using knowledge created within the Action. Submission of a proposal based on knowledge created within the Action Lobbying activities aimed at the inclusion of a specific topic in FP calls. Please note that COST Office does not lobby or provide official support to these activities. Lobbying activities aimed at the inclusion of a specific topic in other S&T funding schemes calls. Please note that COST Office does not lobby or provide official support to these activities. Self-explanatory Teaching and information packages, videos, games, or any other educational material based on knowledge created within the Action. PhD or MSc student supervision shared by at least two Action members affiliated with institutions based in at least two different Action countries, and aimed at integrating knowledge produced by the Action in the student project. To be described in Action Work Plan: may be reassigned to an existing category by the COST Office 45

46 Annex 2: Proposal Display (Proposer view) 46

47 47