CountZ wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:49 amHi again everyone
We are writing a complaint to the Commission about unfair evaluation processes, but we need your help.
If you think that the evaluation is unfair, please tell us why. Maybe you got a much lower score on re-submission. Maybe you don't think your proposal should have received the high/low score it did. The goal is the get the Commission to rethink its evaluation process, so as to make this less of a lottery, and instead to reward the best proposals. You can quote this message and fill in the following:
Reason you believe the system is unfair:
Suggestion for improving it:
Please also Private Message your email address to me or to Dajm, if you wish to: (1) be recontacted about our complaint, (2) have an opportunity to sign the complaint before we send it.
As I said in a previous message, my proposal is a resubmission scored 89,6 in 2017. After reviewing my project according to the weaknessess raised my project has received a score of 71,2. None of the previous weaknessess has been evidenced by reviewers ( that means I have addressed all the criticisms) but, although the project was exactly the same, it was rejected due to a serious number of inherent weaknesses. In the last paragraph of the evaluation report reviewers state that " Over the years proposal are usually assessed by different evaluators who may express different judgements and opinions.....This may lead to a difference in scoring results and opinions". Of course this makes sense, but not such a huge drop as in my case ( from 89, 6 to 71 is 20%less than the year before). Furthermore, I also found some inconsistences between strenghts and weaknesses, as follows (just some examples):
The researcher will benefit from the host institute’s experience in MRI technique and research in psychiatric disorders as well as from the
host institute's international network, and gain new skills in supervising.
The researcher has a good track record of successful research, publication, teaching activities and previously acquired skills and awards,
demonstrating their potential to reach maturity.
- It is not sufficiently detailed how the new skills build on existing skills and how they contribute to the researcher's professional maturity.
- The fellowship will enhance the scientific, clinical and technical scope of the researcher, thus widening the potential career opportunities.
- There is an adequate strategy and plan to disseminate to the scientific community with publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations
at conferences and scientific press releases.
- There is a strategy for commercialisation of the results.
- I is not sufficiently clear how the project will enhance the career prospects of the researcher.
- Although the strong track record of technology transfer and IP of the host is outlined, the scope of the current project is limited in terms of
potential for technology transfer and IP applications.
- Dissemination to stakeholders like pharma companies, regulatory bodies, and policy makers is insufficiently addressed.