Ann Moerenhout

1. Ann Moerenhout Belgian COST event, Brussels, 14 March 2014 Proposal writing “Tips and tricks”

2. I: Overview

3. COST (Open Call) Proposals • Preliminary proposal submission at any time at www.cost.eu/opencall - next “collection date” : • Friday 28 March 2014 (new Actions to start early 2015) • No collection date in September 2014 • Key documents: • Action Proposal Submission, Evaluation, Selection and Approval (COST doc 4113/13) • COST Action Proposal Submission, Evaluation, Selection and Approval (SESA) Guidelines • Information on current/previous Actions: http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions

4. Preliminary proposals ~ 1 500 words Full proposals ~ 11 000 words New Actions By Collection date: COST 400-600 80-120 30-46 COST (Open Call) Proposals

5. COST vsFP7/H2020

6. II: Preliminary Proposals

7. Evaluation Criteria: Preliminary Proposals

8. Preliminary Proposal evaluation

9. Preliminary Proposal evaluation

10. Prelim Proposals: “tips and tricks” Read the preliminary proposal evaluation criteria and maximise score for each • In the design of the proposed Action, and • reflect the evaluation language in your proposal AND justify, eg“ The topic of this proposal is very important and timely because . . .” “The proposed approach is highly innovative in that it . . .” Ask Chairs of recent running COST Actions for a copy of their (obviously successful) Preliminary Proposal 10

11. Prelim Proposals: “tips and tricks” Get people (eg colleague/ DC Expert/ DC Member) to “assess” your proposal before you submit it, and revise the proposal according to their feedback 6 (out of 36) marks for presentation: • Get (near) native speaker to proof read the proposal • Get someone outside the network/field to read the proposal – is it clear without “inside knowledge” • Follow the template AND clearly address each criterion (difficult!) 11

12. Prelim Proposals: “tips and tricks” EVALUATION CRITERIA I.1 RIGHT FOR COST? Is COST the best mechanism for achieving the Action's objectives? I.2 PUBLIC UTILITY/SCIENCE Does the proposed Action address real current problems/ scientific issues? I.3 INNOVATION Is the proposed Action innovative? I.4 IMPACT Would the proposed network make a significant difference in terms of knowledge, capacity building, social impacts, etc? I.5 NETWORKING Are networking aspects well motivated and developed in the proposal? I.6 PRESENTATION Is the proposed Action presented in a clear and understandable way? • PROPOSAL TEMPLATE • BACKGROUND, PROBLEMS • BENEFITS • OBJECTIVES, DELIVERABLES AND EXPECTED SCIENTIFIC IMPACT • SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME AND INNOVATION • ORGANISATION 12

13. III: Full Proposals

14. Full Proposals: “tips and tricks” Read the full proposal evaluation criteria and mark point descriptors and maximise score for each • In the design of the proposed Action, and • reflect the mark point descriptor (1/2/3/4) language in your proposal AND justify , eg “. . . important impacts very likely in several respects . . .” • Again note the difference between the template (which must be followed) and the evaluation criteria (which must be addressed while following the template). Read the MoUs of recent new COST Actions (MoU text = Full Proposal text) Full proposals: A (Science & Networking) and B (Impact) are double weighted – these MUST be strong to succeed (each point = 2/75) 14

15. Full Proposals: “tips and tricks” Differentiate your proposal from existing Actions, networks and (EU/ regional) projects Get people outside the network/proposal (especially DC Experts) to “evaluate” your full proposal before submission and revise it taking into account their feedback BEFORE you submit a proposal send your cv to Science Officer and DC Chair to express interest in being an EEP Member (= insight into full proposal evaluation process) 15

16. Full Proposal Template • D. SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME • D.1 Scientific focus • D.2 Scientific work plan - methods and means • E. ORGANISATION • E.1 Coordination and organisation • E.2 Working Groups • E.3 Liaison and interaction with other research programmes • E.4 Gender balance and involvement of early-stage researchers (ESR) • F. TIMETABLE • G. ECONOMIC DIMENSION • H. DISSEMINATION PLAN • H.1 Who? • H.2 What? • H.3 How? • Templates available in DocumentCOST Action Proposal Submission, Evaluation, Selection and Approval (SESA) Guidelines • A. ABSTRACT AND KEYWORDS • B. BACKGROUND • B.1 General background • B.2 Current state of knowledge • B.3 Reasons for the Action • B.4 Complementarity with other research programmes • C. OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS • C.1 Aim • C.2 Objectives • C.3 How networking within the Action will yield the objectives? • C.4 Potential impact of the Action • C.5 Target groups/end users

17. Evaluation Criteria: Full Proposals Threshold: 55 points out of 75

18. Evaluation Criteria: Full Proposals A SCIENCE AND NETWORKING (Weight 2) A.1 Does the proposed Action address real current problems/scientific issues? 4. The topic is very important and /or timely and proposal presents the correct approaches. 3. The topic is very important and /or timely, but proposal fails to present the correct approaches. 2. The topic is not important nor timely, although proposal presents the correct approaches. 1. Serious lack of substance and/or relevance. A.2 Does the proposed Action show awareness of the state-of-the-art of the relevant scientific/technical/socio-economic fields? 4. Excellent and up to date awareness of relevant scientific/technical fields 3. Good awareness of relevant fields. 2. Defective awareness of relevant fields. 1. Serious lack of awareness of relevant fields. A.3 Is the proposed Action innovative? 4. Highly innovative: identifies a significant new problem and/or a significant new approach. 3. Innovative in some notable aspects. 2. Not very innovative: the topic is already well-studied and/or the proposal largely follows a well-trodden approach. 1. Not at all innovative. A.4 Does the proposed Action answer a need for the networking of experts in the field? 4. Networking in this field ranks amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art and the proposal uses such a mechanism in a sound manner. 3. Networking in this field ranks amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art, but the proposal fails to use such a mechanism in a sound manner. 2. Networking in this field is not amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art, although the proposal uses such a mechanism in a sound manner. 1. Networking in this field is not amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art and the proposal fails to use such a mechanism in a sound manner.

19. Tips and Tricks: FP Section A Choose a very important and/or timely topic and propose the correct approaches Excellent and up to date awareness of relevant scientific/technical fields • If resubmitting proposal UPDATE the SOTA with any new Actions/ projects since previous submission even if previous SOTA was excellent Make proposal highly innovative: a significant new problem and/or a significant new approach Ensure (and prove) that networking in this field ranks amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art and the proposal uses such a mechanism in a sound manner. 19

20. Evaluation Criteria: Full Proposals B IMPACT (Weight 2) B.1 If the proposed Action aims at (choose between a, b, or c.): a. meeting European economic or societal needs / b. developing the scientific or technological field / c. both a and b,how likely is it to achieve useful impacts? 4. Important impacts very likely in several respects. 3. Some notable impacts likely. 2. May make some minor impacts. 1. Unlikely to make useful impacts. B.2 Are there clear plans for stimulating the production of high quality outputs? 4. Plans for outputs are clear, wide-ranging and ambitious. 3. Plans for outputs are reasonable. 2. Plans for outputs are unambitious or defective. 1. Plans for outputs are minimal or absent. B.3 Is attention given to the involvement of stakeholders in order to increase the potential application of results (including, where appropriate, fostering their commercial exploitation)? 4. Stakeholders are already part of experts who took part in the preparation of the proposal. 3. Plans for implication of stakeholders are clear, wide-ranging and feasible. 2. Plans for implication of stakeholders are reasonable. 1. Plans for implication of stakeholders are unambitious or defective.

21. Tips and Tricks: FP Section B Ensure that important impacts are very likely in several respects and describe these impacts also in terms of scientific/ technical/ economic/ societal/ environmental, Clearly describe plans for wide-ranging and ambitious outputs, Involve as many groups of relevant stakeholders as possible in the preparation of the proposal (and ensure that they are listed as having participated in the proposal). • Or, at least ensure that plans for implication of stakeholders are clear, wide-ranging and feasible 21

22. Evaluation Criteria: Full Proposals C STRUCTURE AND ORGANISATION (Weight 1) C.1 Is the proposal presented in a clear, convincing, and appropriate way? 4. Very clearly written with compelling argument; fully appropriate format. 3. Well written; argument is easy to follow; appropriate format but may need minor changes; 2. Poorly written, but argument can be followed with effort; and/or defective format. 1. Poorly written; argument is unclear; and/or inappropriate format. C.2 Are the workplan and organisation appropriate? 4. Workplan and organisation make full, productive and cost-effective use of COST opportunities. 3. Workplan and organisation are reasonable, any defects are minor. 2. Workplan and/or organisation show significant defects. 1. Workplanand/or organisation are lacking or inappropriate or unclear. C.3 Are the time schedule and the setting of milestones appropriate? 4. Schedule and milestones are well-defined and practical. 3. Schedule and milestones are reasonable. 2. Schedule and/or milestones show some defects. 1. Schedule and/or milestones are lacking or inappropriate or unclear. C.4 Are appropriate plans made for monitoring and evaluating the achievement of objectives? 4. Monitoring and evaluation plans are well-defined and practical. 3. Monitoring and evaluation plans are reasonable. 2. Monitoring and evaluation plans show some defects. 1. Monitoring and evaluation plans are lacking or inappropriate or unclear.

23. Tips and Tricks: FP Section C Ensure proposal is very clearly written with compelling argument and fully appropriate format (follow template): • Get (near) native speaker to proof read proposal • Get someone external to the proposal to check for clarity Ensure workplanand organisation make full, productive and cost-effective use of COST opportunities. • Ensure all COST instruments (various meetings, STSMs, Training Schools, Dissemination are used) Include clear time schedule and appropriate milestones • Milestones enable the monitoring of progress (milestones are not the same thing as deliverables) Include well-defined and practical monitoring and evaluation plans 23

24. Evaluation Criteria: Full Proposals D CONTRIBUTION TO WIDER COST GOALS (Weight 1) D.1 How well does the proposed Action aim to involve early stage researchers? 1. An innovative plan is presented in addition to the standard template in Section E.4 of Full Proposal 0. Otherwise. D.2 How well does the proposed Action aim at gender balance? 1. An innovative plan is presented in addition to the standard template in Section E.4 of Full Proposal 0. Otherwise. D.3 Does the proposed Action have the potential to contribute to the solution of global challenges in a global dimension? 1. Proposal will certainly attract interest from a wide range of non-COST Countries if approved 0. Otherwise.

25. Tips and Tricks: FP Section D Present an innovative plan for ESR involvement in addition to the standard template in Section E.4 of Full Proposal: • Refer to COST 295/09 (CSO Strategy for ESRs) and set targets (eg 20% of annual budget) for STSMs, at least one Training School per year, ESRs as Leaders of at least ½ the WGs • Set target for % of meeting reimbursement places given to ESRs • ESR as Chair/ Vice Chair of the Action Present an innovative plan for gender balance in addition to the standard template in Section E.4 of Full Proposal: • Eg guarantee that at least 40% of the Core Group (Chair, Vice Chair, WG leaders, STSM manager) will be of either gender • Guarantee that at least 40% of STSMs and Training School places will be allocated to either gender • Gender balance in Chair and Vice Chair roles Prove that proposal will certainly attract interest from a wide range of non-COST Countries if approved • Include institutions from a wide range (eg different regions) of non-COST countries in the proposal 25

26. Full Proposals: tips and tricks Get geographical balance in the network: cover N S E W • Ask DC Members from “missing” countries to suggest contacts http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions • Ask MC Members from those countries in relevant Actions for suggestions http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions (but don’t just recycle the same people into your proposal) Do not just resubmit an unsuccessful FP7 proposal as COST Action proposal • FP7 = research funding; COST = networking funding • FP7 has Work Packages (WP), COST has Working Groups (WG) Dissemination: best to have a transversal Dissemination Task Force that draws people from each WG, NOT a WG Dissemination 26

27. IV: DC Hearings

28. Proposals: tips and tricks DC Hearings • Follow the instructions in invitation email • Short overview of objectives, outcomes and impact of proposal • Focus on addressing issues raised by the EEP • Practice the presentation • Questions: • Listen to the full question (don’t interrupt the questioner) • Give calm clear concise (non-defensive) answer. 28

29. Proposals: tips and tricks Who can help you: • CNC BE + other Belgian contact points • http://www.belspo.be/belspo/cost/contact_en.stm • Chairs of running Actions • from BE • relevant to your area • DC Members • from BE • from countries that you need contacts in 29

30. Belgian contact points 30

31. www.cost.eu • Open Call: www.cost.eu/opencall • Networking tools: http://www.cost.eu/participate/networking • Domain pages: http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions • FAQ: www.cost.eu/service/faq • Reciprocal Agreements: www.cost.eu/about_cost/reciprocal_agreements • Library: www.cost.eu/media • Events: www.cost.eu/events

32. Ann Moerenhout Belgian COST event, Brussels, 14 March 2014 Thank you for your attention Good luck with your application