You're welcome!CountZ wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:49 pmThanks for this!
We were considering the article on the lottery system. I still have to read it. My opinion (without having read the article yet) is that such a system would fail to differentiate between very good proposals (that should get funded) and good proposals (that shouldn't be funded given limited resources).
What do you mean by the number of evaluation reviews per year?
For the lottery system, at some point mark differences start to be subjective: is a proposal ranked 95.6 really much better than a proposal ranked 95.3? Instead, we can first identify all very good proposals (say, above 90) and then draw randomly from this pool of proposals. One just has to reach some level of "excellence" (I hate this word) to access the lottery, but then s/he could apply every year with her/his very good proposal until s/he get funded, without spending too much time writing/editing the damn thing again and again. In the current system, one can spend as much time running behind funding than doing actual research.
For the evaluation review, sorry, it was a bit cryptic, but as answered above, these are asked by the applicant when s/he feels the review was unfair. I might assume the number of evaluation reviews per call could be a good indicator of the perceived fairness of the evaluation, say if there are a lot of such evaluation reviews for every call this could indicate a problem. I am not sure the EC publishes stats on these, though.