Individual Assessment Report (IAR) - IEF Call: FP7-PEOPLE-IEF-2008

Proposal Nr. Acronym

Self-evaluation form
This form is made available to applicants who may themselves wish to arrange an
evaluation of their proposal (e.g. by a disinterested colleague) prior to final editing,
submission and deadline. The forms used by the experts during the Commission evaluation
will be broadly similar, although the final layout may differ.

Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships for Career

Development
Proposal No.: Acronym: Panel:

I. Detailed evaluation

Criterion 1. S&T QUALITY

Issues to be addressed when assigning an overall mark for this criterion:
• Scientific/technological quality, including any interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects of the
proposal
• Research methodology
• Originality and innovative nature of the project, and relationship to the 'state of the art' of research in the
field
• Timeliness and relevance of the project
• Host scientific expertise in the field
• Quality of the group/supervisors
Strengths of the proposal (in bullet point format):

Weaknesses of the proposal (in bullet point format):

Overall comments:
(reflecting the relative importance of the strength and weaknesses above mentioned)

Overall mark (out of 5)

Note : Threshold 3, Weighting:25%

0=Fails or missing/incomplete information; 1=Very Poor; 2=Poor; 3=Fair; 4= Good; 5=Excellent.

Marks for each criterion are given to one decimal point. Note that the maximum is 5.
1
Individual Assessment Report (IAR) - IEF Call: FP7-PEOPLE-IEF-2008
Proposal Nr. Acronym

Criterion 2. Training
Issues to be addressed when assigning an overall mark for this criterion:
• Clarity and quality of the research training objectives for the researcher
• Relevance and quality of additional scientific training as well as of complementary skills offered
• Host expertise in training experienced researchers in the field and capacity to provide mentoring/tutoring
Strengths of the proposal (in bullet point format):

Weaknesses of the proposal (in bullet point format):

Overall comments:
(reflecting the relative importance of the strength and weaknesses above mentioned)

Overall mark (out of 5)

Note : Threshold 3, Weighting:15%

Criterion 3. RESEARCHER
Issues to be addressed when assigning an overall mark for this criterion:
• Research experience
• Research results including patents, publications, teaching etc., taking into account the level of experience
• Independent thinking and leadership qualities
• Match between the fellow's profile and project
• Potential for reaching a position of professional maturity.
• Potential to acquire new knowledge.
Strengths of the proposal (in bullet point format):

Weaknesses of the proposal (in bullet point format):

Overall comments:
(reflecting the relative importance of the strength and weaknesses above mentioned)

Overall mark (out of 5)

Note : Threshold 4, Weighting:25%

0=Fails or missing/incomplete information; 1=Very Poor; 2=Poor; 3=Fair; 4= Good; 5=Excellent.

Marks for each criterion are given to one decimal point. Note that the maximum is 5.
2
Individual Assessment Report (IAR) - IEF Call: FP7-PEOPLE-IEF-2008
Proposal Nr. Acronym

Criterion 4. IMPLEMENTATION
Issues to be addressed when assigning an overall mark for this criterion:
• Quality of infrastructure / facilities and International collaborations of host
• Practical arrangements for the implementation and management of the scientific project
• Feasibility and credibility of the project, including work plan
• Practical and administrative arrangements, and support for the hosting of the fellow
Strengths of the proposal (in bullet point format):

Weaknesses of the proposal (in bullet point format):

Overall comments:
(reflecting the relative importance of the strength and weaknesses above mentioned)

Overall mark (out of 5)

Note : No threshold, Weighting:15%

Criterion 5. IMPACT
Issues to be addressed when assigning an overall mark for this criterion:
• Potential of acquiring competencies during the fellowship to improve the prospects of reaching and/or
reinforcing a position of professional maturity, diversity and independence, in particular through exposure
to complementary skills training
• Contribution to career development, or re-establishment where relevant
• Contribution to European excellence and European Competitiveness
Strengths of the proposal (in bullet point format):

Weaknesses of the proposal (in bullet point format):

Overall comments:
(reflecting the relative importance of the strength and weaknesses above mentioned)

Overall mark (out of 5)

Note : No threshold Weighting:20%

0=Fails or missing/incomplete information; 1=Very Poor; 2=Poor; 3=Fair; 4= Good; 5=Excellent.

Marks for each criterion are given to one decimal point. Note that the maximum is 5.
3
Individual Assessment Report (IAR) - IEF Call: FP7-PEOPLE-IEF-2008
Proposal Nr. Acronym

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEGOTIATION AND/OR INDICATORS TO MONITOR

PROGRESS OF PROJECT:

For Commission use only.

II. Evaluation Summary

Marks for the evaluation criteria should reflect the quality of the proposal as submitted by the applicants.

Criterion Mark Weight Score Criterion Mark Weight Score

1. S&T Quality 25% 4. Implementation 15%

2. Training 15% 5. Impact 20%

3. Researcher 25%

Total score expressed out of 5 (threshold 3.5)

Total score expressed out of 100 (threshold 70%)

III. Ethical Issues

Does this proposal raise ethical issues? Yes ο No ο

Please refer to the list of issues in the Ethical Issues Report (EIR)

If yes, please indicate (after completing the EIR Form)

if this proposal should be referred to the Ethical Review Panel Yes ο No ο

0=Fails or missing/incomplete information; 1=Very Poor; 2=Poor; 3=Fair; 4= Good; 5=Excellent.

Marks for each criterion are given to one decimal point. Note that the maximum is 5.
4