After the closure of the deadline for proposal submission, the phase of evaluation starts. This process is divided into three parts, the technical pre-evaluation', the final technical evaluation, performed by the scientists in charge of the instrument, and the scientific evaluation, performed by an independent, international panel of experts.
Technical evaluations: feasibility
Technical evaluations are carried out by the beamline/instrument scientist responsible for the method. The evaluation is divided into two different steps and relates only to the technical feasibility of the experiment and the sufficiency of the proposed hours. In the pre-evaluation, the instrument scientist checks the proposal and makes comments to the editor. After that evaluation, the editor can improve the proposal according to these comments and re-submit. After re-submission, the instrument scientist will finally evaluate the technical feasibility of the proposal and send it for scientific evaluation. The instrument scientist will not input into the scientific assessment of the proposal and is not a member of the review panel.
The scientific evaluation is based on scientific excellence only. Every proposal will be evaluated by independent reviewers. The reviewer will give scores for each technique the proposer requests as if it was a single-instrument proposal. These scores reflect both the scientific excellence of the project and the effectiveness of the method for achieving the results pursued by the proposers. Every project is then given an overall score based on the individual scores of the single techniques, as well as on the overall project and the relevance of its multi-technique approach.
The scoring goes from 1 (best) to 5 (worst). Unfeasible experiments and single instrument proposals are rated with five (5).
Scores represent the following principles:
1.0 - 1.5: Highly innovative research proposal of exceptional quality and outstanding scientific and/or practical relevance. It makes optimal use of the possibilities offered by CERIC-ERIC. The experimental plan is effective and the combination of requested facilities is fundamental for achieving the results pursued. It must get time on all selected instruments.
1.6 - 2.0: A well-conceived and original research proposal, with strong potential for making an important contribution to an active field of research. It makes very good use of the possibilities offered by CERIC-ERIC The experimental plan is effective and the combination of requested facilities is fundamental for achieving the results pursued. It should definitely get time on all selected instruments.
2.1 - 2.5: Very good proposal, with a relevant scientific case and likely to produce significant results. The experimental plan is well written and the use of the requested instruments is justified. It should get time on all selected instruments.
2.6 - 3.0: A potentially excellent proposal that is lacking some information, e.g., preliminary results, further explanations, sample preparation description etc. Although not groundbreaking, it is near cutting-edge and likely to produce significant results. The need for the requested methods is evident. It may get time, unless there are too many exceptional proposals. A proposal in this category could be given access to a subset of the required instruments to obtain preliminary information to produce a better research proposal in a future call.
3.1 - 4.0: CERIC-ERIC facilities may be required and the science interesting, although in a well-worked area of research. It is of lower priority in a competitive environment. It may get the time if the pressure on the required instruments is not heavy.
4.1 - 5.0: Doubts exist regarding the scientific content of the proposed project, or the scientific case is not clear, or there is no clear requirement for CERIC-ERIC facilities. It should not get time unless there is no demand on the particular instruments.
Due to oversubscription of a given instrument, a proposer may be granted time only for some of the requested techniques.
For further information please contact CERIC user office: firstname.lastname@example.org