'Peer review' evaluation
 

The evaluation of the scientific quality of a proposal is conducted on a 'peer review' basis, i.e. by independent researchers from universities and other research institutions. Any qualified researcher can apply for this activity. A declaration of confidentiality and absence of conflict of interest has to be signed by all reviewers.
 
During the remote individual evaluation, each proposal will be assessed independently by at least three reviewers (larger projects: six). Each proposal is generally evaluated against the following three evaluation criteria:

S/T Quality "Scientific and/or  technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the call)"	Implementation "Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management"	Impact "Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results"
Soundness of concept and quality of objectives Progress beyond the state-of-the-art Quality and effectiveness of the S/T methodology and associated work plan	Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance) Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment)	Contribution, at the European [and/or international] level to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic/activity Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property

Each of these three criteria will be scored on a scale from 1 to 5 (half marks possible). Each criterion must score at least 3 to pass the individual threshold. If the mark given by the expert is below the threshold of a single criterion, the proposal fails the evaluation. To pass the overall threshold a score of at least 10 (out of 15) is needed, otherwise the proposal also fails the evaluation. To see the evaluation forms used by the peer reviewers click here >>
Once each expert has recorded his/her opinion about the proposal in an Individual Evaluation Summary (IES), the scores are compared and discussed during a consensus meeting in Brussels. The meeting is moderated by a representative from the Commission. The aim of the session is to obtain a fair, equitable and clear assessment of the proposal. The consensus report will be drafted by one of the evaluators who acts as rapporteur.
At the subsequent panel review a selection of scientific experts discuss and compare the consensus reports, consider borderline cases and cases where a strong minority view has been noticeable. The panel may also suggest a clustering of proposals. After confirming or (if carefully justified) adjusting the scores, the panel finally proposes a priority order based on the final scoring.