1 / 13

Exploratory Workshop Advisory Group meeting Bath, UK, 21 October 2009

Exploratory Workshop Advisory Group meeting Bath, UK, 21 October 2009. Chair : Roderick Floud Participants: Arsen Bačić Pieter Hooimeijer Rainer Kattel (written comments) Sabine Krolak-Schwerdt Algis Krupavicius Slavko Splichal John Yfantopoulos Office support: Balázs Kiss

olivia-russo
Download Presentation

Exploratory Workshop Advisory Group meeting Bath, UK, 21 October 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Exploratory Workshop Advisory Group meetingBath, UK, 21 October 2009 Chair: Roderick Floud Participants: Arsen Bačić Pieter Hooimeijer Rainer Kattel (written comments) Sabine Krolak-Schwerdt AlgisKrupavicius SlavkoSplichal John Yfantopoulos Office support: Balázs Kiss Rhona Heywood-Roos

  2. 2009 Call • 261 (eligible) proposals were received for all ESF scientific units • 115 were relevant to the SCSS. • The pre-filtering group selected 64 for further evaluation (89 with addition of trans-committee proposals) which were assessed by external referees

  3. Advisory Group Work • Eachmemberwasallocated 12-15 proposals • The group focused on the highestrankedproposals, according to referee grades and withrankingfromadvisory group members • The proposalswith the top rating of 5 were split into the « top 10 » mostdeserving and 6 verydeserving • A further 15 proposalswith the grade of 4 wereranked

  4. Top Ten - unconditional 5/10 trans-committeeproposals

  5. The 6 « verydeserving » 2/6 trans-committeeproposals

  6. 15 – ranked in order of preference

  7. 15 – ranked in order of preference– continued… 8/15 trans-committeeproposals

  8. Distribution of proposals by applicant country

  9. The nextsteps • The SCSS isasked to endorse the recommendedlist • At the ESF the workshops are allocatedaccording to • Availablefunding • Committeepriorities • The more trans-committeeproposals are awarded, the more workshops on the recommendedlist

  10. Further input from SCSS

  11. Revised procedure for the assessmentof ESF Exploratory Workshops proposals ** Questionnaire to ESF Standing Committees ** 1. Did your committee fully adopt the new process of selecting EWs using a pre-filtering step, as described in the document circulated at the April Core Group/SC meeting ? a) Yes, we fully adopted the suggested new process 2. Please select as appropriate For pre-filtering: b) We used Core Group members as well as other members of the Committee to conduct the pre-filtering For assessment: d) We used a mix of external referees and Core Group/Committee members For ranking: a) Some of the referees who assessed the proposals were also part of the ranking group

  12. Questionnairecontinued… 3. Do you think the pre-filtering step increased the effectiveness of the selection process for identifying the top EW proposals The Advisory Group would like to see the impact of the 25 trans-committee proposals before responding 4. Do you think the pre-filtering step reduced the overall peer review burden in your committee Somewhat reduced 5. Do you think the pre-filtering step should be permanently adopted? Definitely Yes

  13. Questionnaire continued… 6. General Conclusion/Comments by Standing Committee on new procedure: Continue with process but put greater emphasis on pre-filtering step. The pre-filtering step is useful in weeding out poor proposals thus reducing the burden on referees.

More Related