Building European Good Practices through the Member Organisation Fora for Peer Review and Evaluation Laura Marin Member Relations, European Science Foundation CNR. Rome, 14 September 2011
From (2006) National basic principles for peer review To (2011) European core principles for peer review Towards (2012) Global principles on merit review 2
ESF Member Organisation Fora & the Road Map Actions The EUROHORCs and ESF Vision on a Globally competitive ERA and their Road Map for Actions (Published in 2009) 1. Strengthen the relations between science, society and the private sector ESF MO Fora on Science in Society Relationships Research Integrity 2. Promote European research careers European Alliance on Research Career Development 3. Develop scientific foresight for joint strategy Scientific Foresight for Joint Strategy Development 5. Address peer review of proposals Peer Review 6. Develop common approaches to ex-post evaluation 8. Develop shared funding and exploitation of research infrastructure Evaluation of Publicly Funded Research Evaluation: Indicators of Internationalisation Research Infrastructures 3
ESF Member Organiation Forum on Peer Review Aim Platform to exchange experiences and to promote good practices across Europe. Objectives Document experiences on current practices Identify good practices Promote Peer Review coordination Standardise peer review processes Develop a European Peer Review Guide Participation 32 organisations (+ 7 observers) from year 2006 Actions / Outcomes 1. The ESF Survey Analysis Report on Peer Review Practices 2. The European Peer Review Guide 4
Peer Review is for: Recognising quality, Organising checks and balances, Inspiring trust, displaying justice Core Principles of Peer Review are for: To be used for Pan-European peer review and standards: Setting standards and benchmarking national scientific communities in Europe or when organisations work collaboratively together or develop their national peer review system Enabling to operate in a global context 5
Core Principles of Peer Review and the Guide The Guide: Introduction and structuring framework for the European Peer Review Guide The guide is framed around the Core Principles Forum Members: To discuss and agree on the set of main principles for each peer review process And to share practices on key issues Aims: To ensure fairness and quality of the process To improve efficiency through standardisation To facilitate engaging reviewers across borders 6
ESF MO Forum on Peer Review Activities Launch Event October 2006, Prague 1 st Workshop March 2008, The Hague Working groups meetings: 1. Strasbourg 23 May 2007 2. London 6-7 September 2007 3. Brussels 12 November 2007 4. Vienna 7-8 October 2008 5. Brussels 14-15 May 2009 6. Strasbourg 3-4 November 2009 7. Brussels 19-20 May 2010 8. Strasbourg 2-3 September 2010 9. Strasbourg 17 November 2010 10.Brussels 8-9 February 2011 11.Brussels 6-7 December 2011 Conference Report: Peer review - Its present and future state. Prague, October 2006 Core Principles of Peer Review development from October 2008 Survey development from May 2009 Guide development from April 2010 to April 2011 7
NWO: Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research Principles for PR: QuITAC 1. Quality 2. Impartiality 3. Transparancy 4. Appropriateness for purpose 5. Confidentiality 8
EC 7FP Basic Principles 1. Excellence 2. Transparency 3. Fairness and impartiality 4. Confidentiality 5. Efficiency and speed 6. Ethical and security considerations 9
Joint Programming Basic Principles 1. Relevance 2. Excellence 3. Impartiality 4. Transparency 5. Quality 6. Confidentiality 7. Ethics and Integrity 10
1. Excellence European Peer Review Guide Core Principles April 2011 2. Impartiality 3. Transparency 4. Appropriateness for purpose 5. Efficiency and speed 6. Confidentiality 7. Ethical and Integrity considerations 11
Principles European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity ESF MO Forum on Research Integrity - July 2010 Researchers, research institutes, universities, academies and funding organisations commit to principles of scientific integrity 1. Honesty 2. Reliability 3. Objectivity 4. Impartiality and independence 5. Open communication 6. Duty of care 7. Fairness 8. Responsibility for future science generations Employers have a responsibility to establish a culture of research integrity. 12
ESF MO Forum on ex-post Evaluation of Publicly Funded Research Aims To identify the challenges in conducting transnational comparative evaluation To learn about best practices of impact assessment of research and research funding To improve evaluation studies on funding schemes Objectives Exchange and share information on evaluation studies of funding schemes and practices Produce an inventory of current and past impact evaluation practices/methodologies across MOs Develop an analysis of research portfolios and output of research Actions 1. Evaluation Guidelines 2. Impact assessment on Science and Society 3. Comparative Research Portfolios & Output Data Participation 33 Organisations (+ 7 observers ) 13
Disseminate the Guide ESF MO Forum on Peer Review Next Steps Implement the Guide at national level International Workshop on Peer Review & European Workshop: regional preparatory meeting Brussels 6-7 Dec. 2011 Global Summit on Merit Review Washington May 2012 Drafting of the Global Statement of Principles on Merit Review 14
Thank you for your attention More info: http://www.esf.org/activities/mo-fora.html Laura Marin lmarin@esf.org 15