cost evaluation procedure · selection procedure stage 1.a: preliminary proposal - domain...

ESF provides the COST Office

through a European Commission contractCOST is supported

by the EU Framework Programme

COST

Evaluation Procedure

(Open Call for proposals)

Brussels, 15 March 2013

2

COST Founded in 1971

Intergovernemental initiative

FP7 budget : EUR 250 Mio (EU Commission)

supporting cooperation among scientists and researchers all fields

of research via coordination of nationally-funded research on a

European level

36 member countries (EU+)

1 Instrument: COST Action (4 year network - min.5 COST countries)

+/- 250 Running Action

Average yearly support: EUR 130,000 (Grant) for a network of 19

Countries

Support to networking activities (Meetings, Workshops, Training

Schools, Publications…)

3

Main features Introduced in 2006

Continuous call (submission any time of the year)

9 Domains + Trans-Domain Proposals (all areas covered)

Everybody affiliated to an institution can apply (applicant/

coordinator)

2 collections/year (last Friday of September & March)

7 ½ Months process from collection date to approval

Constant growth from 400 proposals (2007-1) to 600 (2012-1)

2 stage-process: preliminary (4p.) and full proposals (20-25p+ann.)

7% success rate

On-line tool for applicants (login linked to one collection),

assessors and monitors

Guideline for Assessment of applications for COST Actions (4111/11)

4

2 Submission patterns

The submission follows a different pattern

whether the proposal is submitted to one of the 9

COST Domains or as a an interdisciplinary

proposal, called Trans-Domain Proposal (TDP).

For the latter, a TDP Pilot has been set up for the

collections 2013-1 and 2013-2. It features a new

proposal template, revised evaluation criteria and

a reviewed scoring system.

5

Evaluation Process Collection 2012-1 (ex: n° proposals)

MONTH 1 MONTH 2 MONTH 3 MONTH 4 MONTH 5 MONTH 6 MONTH 7 MONTH 8

Collection of Preliminary

Proposals (612)

Eligibility check &

Domain allocation (593)

Domain Committee

assessment (116)

deadline Full Proposal (115)

External experts

assessment (77)

Domain Committee

Hearings (final list)

Approval CSO JAF

Preparation of

Full Proposal

Preparation of

MoU

Preliminary proposal eligible submitted - 2007/1 to 2012/1 (594)

No o

f pro

posals

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2007/1 2007/2 2008/1 2008/2 2009/1 2009/2 2010/1 2010/2 2011/1 2011/2 2012/1

7

Preliminary Proposal (1)

On-line form (applicant login linked to one collection)

+/- 600 proposals (2012-1) submitted in 9 Domains + Trans-

domain

4-5 pages

Anonymous for the assessors

8

Preliminary Proposal by Domain

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

BMBS FA FPS CMST ESSEM MPNS ICT ISCH TUD TDP

2007/1-2011/1(average)

2011/2

2012/1

No o

f p

roposals

9

Preliminary Proposal (2) Content:

Applicant details + Gender, ESR, Resubmission

Proposal title

Abstract (max.1000 char)

Key words (max.400 char)

Selected Domain (if TDP, selection of many Domains + justification)

Text of proposal (max.10000 char) - open text, but must address the

following points:

Backround, problems addressed

Benefits

Objectives, deliverables and expected scientific impact

Scientific program and innovation

Organisation

List of participant (min.5 COST countries) – Name, Institution, Country

10

Selection Procedure Stage 1.a: Preliminary Proposal – Domain Allocation

and eligibility check Screening by COST Science Officers and Head of Sc. Operations

2-3 weeks

½ day wrap-up meeting (PPAM) at COST Office

3% eliminated, 6% reshuffled (2012-1)

11

Selection Procedure Stage 1.a: Preliminary Proposal - Domain Allocation

and eligibility check – rejection criteria

Duplication with another proposal

Overlap with existing Action (duplication of research) – but

continuation is OK

Research funding

Out-of-scope: such as single activity (ex: conference)

Does not follow the proposal template

Contradiction with COST principles (ex: military purposes)

Proposal text not anonymous

Not 5 COST Countries

Any new category of ineligibility

12

Selection Procedure Stage 1.b: Preliminary Proposal – DC assessment Domain Committee members (4 year mandate - nominated by

CNC)

5 weeks process

1 week allocation: DC Chair/SO allocates proposals to assessor

3 weeks remote evaluation (marks and comments)

1 wk check: conflict of interest, outliers, phrasing of comments

6 questions – marks from 1 to 6 (max: 36) – 70% threshold

min.3 assessments/proposal

Allocation, monitoring & check by Science Officer & DC Chair

Top ranked by Domain invited to submit Full Proposal (Domain

distribution Formula/in relation with the final number of proposals)

85% eliminated

13

Selection Procedure Stage 1.b: Preliminary Proposal – DC assessment

Is COST the best mechanism for achieving the objectives?

Public utility/Science: does the proposed Action address real current

problems/ scientific issues?

Innovation?

Impact of the network: knowledge, capacity building, social impacts

Are networking aspects well motivated and developed in the

proposal?

presented in a clear, rational and understandable way?

14

Full Proposal (1)

On-line form (applicant login linked to one collection)

2 months preparation

Text and tables only

88 full proposals submitted in 2011-2

+/- 15-20 pages (draft technical annex) + additional information

(no strict limit)

Participants not anonymous for the assessors

15

Full Proposal (2) Content part I (Technical Annex) – in MoU:

Abstract (max.200 words)

Background (2-3 pages)

Objectives and benefits (max.2 pages)

Scientific programme (max.3-4 pages)

Organisation (max.2 pages)

Timetable

Economic Dimension

Dissemination plan (max.2 pages)

Content part II (Additional Information) – out MoU:

List of experts

History

Preliminary Workplan

Publications/remarks

16

Selection Procedure Stage 2.a: Full Proposal - External expert

assessment

External Expert Panel (EEP) selected for each Domain by DC

Chair and Science Officer

2-4 per proposal

3-5 weeks (depending on Domain)

Remote individual evaluation (marks and comments)

Threshold: 55/75

1 to 2 days consensus meeting (EEP-SO-DC Chair) at the end

of the assessment: consensus marks and comments

Invitation to DC hearing (30% eliminated)

17

Selection Procedure Stage 2.a: Full Proposal - External expert

assessment – evaluation criteria

Science and Networking: 4 questions – marks from 1 to 4 (weight

2)

Impact: 3 questions – marks from 1 to 4 (weight 2)

Structure and organisation: 4 questions – marks from 1 to 4

(weight 1)

Contribution to wider COST goals: 3 question – marks from 0 to 1

(weight 1)

Overal recommendations (strength – weaknesses)

18

Selection Procedure Stage 2.b: Full Proposal – DC Hearing

Domain Committee members (or core group -ISCH-)

1-2 day(s) hearings per Domain

spread over 3 weeks

Ranking (within Domain) and comment (justification if change

in EEP order)

List of proposal supported for funding (+ reserve list)

according to a Domain distribution Formula

19

Selection Procedure Stage 2.c: Full Proposal – Final list

submitted to JAF/CSO

Selected proposals from each Domain compiled into a single

list

Submission to JAF (composed of CSO members –

preparatory works of the CSO) who checks proposal against

COST principles

Official approval by CSO: the proposal becomes a COST

Action, publication of the Memorandum of Understanding

COST Office

Avenue Louise 149

1050 Brussels, Belgium

T: +32 (0)2 533 3800

[email protected]

Thank you

cost.eu/opencall

www.cost.eu




Melae Langbein (Science Officer) Belgian COST event, Brussels, 15 March 2013

Proposal writing

“Tips and tricks”




I: Overview

COST (Open Call) Proposals

• Preliminary proposal submission at any time at

www.cost.eu/opencall - next “collection dates” are:

• Friday 29 March 2013 (new Actions to start early 2014)

• Friday 27 September 2013 (new Actions to start late 2014)

• Guidelines for Assessment of applications of COST

Actions (COST 4111/11): • Annex A (pg 10) Assessment Criteria for Preliminary

Proposals

• Annex B (pg11-15) Assessment Criteria for Full Proposals

• Annex C (pg16-17) Template for Preliminary Proposals

• Annex D (pg18-29) Template for Full Proposals

• Information on current/ previous Actions in the FPS

Domain: www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fps/Actions/(all)

3

http://www.cost.eu/opencall

http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fps/Actions/(all)

http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fps/Actions/(all)

COST (Open Call) Proposals

New Actions

30-46

Full proposals

~ 11 000 words

Preliminary proposals

~ 1 500 words

80-120 400-600

By Collection date:

COST

4

COST vs FP7 – how to decide Attribute COST FP7

Funding for Networking (meetings, conferences, sci exchanges, training schools)

Research + some other activities

Scope Bottom-up Policy-driven (top-down)

Budget According to number of participants

Proposer makes budget request

Participation Open during Action life Closed once project starts

Participants Same and complementary expertise

Mainly complementary expertise

Members 36 COST countries

+ others in the mutual benefit

EU+

+ others when necessary for the project

5




II: Preliminary Proposals

PP->FP success rate ~ 20% (10%-65%)

Prelim Proposals: “tips and tricks”

1. Read the preliminary proposal assessment

criteria and maximise score for each

– In the design of the proposed Action, and

– reflect the assessment language in your proposal AND justify eg “

The topic of this proposal is very important and timely because . .

.” “The proposed approach is highly innovative in that it . . .”

2. Ask Chairs of recent running COST Actions for a

copy of their (obviously successful) Preliminary

Proposal

7

8

Assessment Criteria: Preliminary Proposals

I.1 RIGHT FOR COST?

Is COST the best mechanism for achieving the

Action's objectives?

yes no

6 5 4 3 2 1

I.2 PUBLIC UTILITY/SCIENCE

Does the proposed Action address real current


yes no

6 5 4 3 2 1

I.3 INNOVATION

Is the proposed Action innovative?

yes no

6 5 4 3 2 1

I.4 IMPACT

Would the proposed network make a significant

difference in terms of knowledge, capacity building,

social impacts, etc?

yes no

6 5 4 3 2 1

I.5 NETWORKING

Are networking aspects well motivated and

developed in the proposal?

yes no

6 5 4 3 2 1

I.6

PRESENTATION

Is the proposed Action presented in a clear and

understandable way?

yes no

6 5 4 3 2 1

Preliminary Proposal

assessment

I.1

RIGHT FOR COST? Is COST the best mechanism for achieving the Action's Objectives? • High marks are given to proposals for which COST is the best adapted mechanism. • Lower marks are given otherwise.

yes no 6 5 4 3 2 1

I.2

PUBLIC UTILITY/SCIENCE Does the proposed Action address real current problems/ scientific issues? • High marks are given to highly exciting and interesting proposals on a very important and/or timely topic. • Lower marks are given otherwise.

yes no 6 5 4 3 2 1

I.3

INNOVATION Is the proposed Action innovative? • High marks are given to highly innovative proposals. • Lower marks are given otherwise.

yes no 6 5 4 3 2 1

9

Preliminary Proposal

assessment

I.4

IMPACT Would the proposed network make a significant difference in terms of knowledge, capacity building, social impacts, etc? • High marks are given to proposals with high potential impact. • Lower marks are given otherwise.

yes no 6 5 4 3 2 1

I.5

NETWORKING Are networking aspects well motivated and developed in the proposal? • High marks for proposals that both motivate the need for networking in the field and show how the proposed networking will add value to the current state-of-the-art. • Lower marks are given otherwise.

yes no 6 5 4 3 2 1

I.6

PRESENTATION Is the proposed Action presented in a clear, rational and understandable way? • High marks for proposals that are presented in a clear, rational and understandable way. • Lower marks are given otherwise.

yes no 6 5 4 3 2 1

10

Prelim Proposals: “tips and tricks” 3. Get people (eg colleague/ DC Expert/ DC

Member) to “assess” your proposal before you

submit it, and revise the proposal according to

their feedback

4. 6 (out of 36) marks for presentation:

Get (near) native speaker to proof read the proposal

Get someone outside the network/ field to read the

proposal – is it clear without “inside knowledge”

Follow the template AND clearly address each

criterion (difficult!)

11

Prelim Proposals: “tips and tricks”

12

PROPOSAL TEMPLATE

• BACKGROUND, PROBLEMS

ADDRESSED

• BENEFITS

• OBJECTIVES,

DELIVERABLES AND

EXPECTED SCIENTIFIC

IMPACT

• SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME

AND INNOVATION

• ORGANISATION

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA I.1 RIGHT FOR COST? Is COST the best mechanism for achieving the

Action's objectives?

I.2 PUBLIC UTILITY/SCIENCE Does the proposed Action address real current


I.3 INNOVATION Is the proposed Action innovative?

I.4 IMPACT Would the proposed network make a significant

difference in terms of knowledge, capacity

building, social impacts, etc?

I.5 NETWORKING Are networking aspects well motivated and

developed in the proposal?

I.6 PRESENTATION Is the proposed Action presented in a clear and

understandable way?

Prelim Proposals: “tips and tricks” 1. Read the preliminary proposal assessment criteria and maximise

score for each – In the design of the proposed Action, and

– reflect the assessment language in your proposal AND justify eg “

The topic of this proposal is very important and timely because . .

.” “The proposed approach is highly innovative in that it . . .”

2. Ask Chairs of recent running COST Actions for a copy of their

(obviously successful) Preliminary Proposal

3. Get people (eg colleague/ DC Expert/ DC Member) to “assess”

your proposal before you submit it, and revise the proposal

according to their feedback

4. 6 (out of 36) marks for presentation:

Get (near) native speaker to proof read the proposal

Get someone outside the network/ field to read the proposal

– is it clear without “inside knowledge”

Follow the template AND clearly address each criterion

(difficult!)

13




III: Full Proposals

FP->DCH success rate ~ 60% (40%-82%)

Full Proposals: “tips and tricks” 1. Read the full proposal assessment criteria and

mark point descriptors and maximise score for

each • In the design of the proposed Action, and

• reflect the mark point descriptor (1/2/3/4) language in your

proposal AND justify eg “. . . important impacts very likely in

several respects . . .”

• Again note the difference between the template (which must

be followed) and the assessment criteria (which must be

addressed while following the template).

2. Read the MoUs of recent new COST Actions (MoU text = Full Proposal text)

3. Full proposals: A (Science & Networking) and

B (Impact) are double weighted – these MUST

be strong to succeed (each point = 2/75)

15

Full Proposals: “tips and tricks” 4. Differentiate your proposal from existing

Actions, networks and (EU/ regional) projects

5. Get people outside the network/ proposal

(especially DC Experts) to “assess” your full

proposal before submission and revise it taking

into account their feedback

6. BEFORE you submit a proposal send your cv

to Science Officer and DC Chair to express

interest in being an EEP Member (= insight

into full proposal assessment process)

16

17

• A. ABSTRACT AND KEYWORDS

• B. BACKGROUND

• B.1 General background

• B.2 Current state of knowledge

• B.3 Reasons for the Action

• B.4 Complementarity with other research

programmes

• C. OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS

• C.1 Aim

• C.2 Objectives

• C.3 How networking within the Action will yield the

objectives?

• C.4 Potential impact of the Action

• C.5 Target groups/end users

Full Proposal Template

• D. SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME

• D.1 Scientific focus

• D.2 Scientific work plan methods and

means

• E. ORGANISATION

• E.1 Coordination and organisation

• E.2 Working Groups

• E.3 Liaison and interaction with other

research programmes

• E.4 Gender balance and involvement of

early-stage researchers (ESR)

• F. TIMETABLE

• G. ECONOMIC DIMENSION

• H. DISSEMINATION PLAN

• H.1 Who?

• H.2 What?

• H.3 How?

Templates available in Document COST

4111/11 “Guidelines for Assessment of

applications for COST Actions”, Annex C)

18

Assessment Criteria: Full Proposals A SCIENCE AND NETWORKING (Weight 2)

A.1 Does the proposed Action address real current problems/scientific issues?

4 3 2 1

A.2 Does the proposed Action show awareness of the state-of-the-art of the relevant scientific/technical/socio-economic fields? 4 3 2 1

A.3 Is the proposed Action innovative?

A.4 Does the proposed Action answer a need for the networking of experts in the field? 4 3 2 1

B IMPACT (Weight 2)

B.1A If the proposed Action aims primarily to meet European economic or societal needs, how likely is it to achieve useful impacts?

B.1B If the proposed Action aims primarily to contribute to the development of the scientific or technological field, how likely is it to achieve useful impacts?

4 3 2 1

B.1C If the proposed Action aims BOTH to meet European economic or societal needs, AND to contribute to the development of the scientific or technological field, how likely is it to achieve useful impacts?

4 3 2 1

B.2 Are there clear plans for stimulating the production of high quality outputs? 4 3 2 1

B.3 Is attention given to the involvement of stakeholders in order to increase the potential application of results (including, where appropriate, fostering their commercial exploitation)?

4 3 2 1

C STRUCTURE AND ORGANISATION (Weight 1)

C.1 Is the proposal presented in a clear, convincing, and appropriate way? 4 3 2 1

C.2 Are the workplan and organisation appropriate? 4 3 2 1

C.3 Are the time schedule and the setting of milestones appropriate? 4 3 2 1

C.4 Are appropriate plans made for monitoring and evaluating the achievement of objectives?

D CONTRIBUTION TO WIDER COST GOALS (Weight 1)

D.1 How well does the proposed Action aim to involve early stage researchers? 1 0

D.2 How well does the proposed Action aim at gender balance? 1 0

D.3 Does the proposed Action have the potential to contribute to the solution of global challenges in a global dimension? 1 0

Threshold: 55 points

out of 75

19

Assessment Criteria: Full Proposals

A SCIENCE AND NETWORKING (Weight 2) A.1 Does the proposed Action address real current problems/scientific issues? 4. The topic is very important and /or timely and proposal presents the correct approaches.

3. The topic is very important and /or timely, but proposal fails to present the correct approaches.

2. The topic is not important nor timely, although proposal presents the correct approaches.

1. Serious lack of substance and/or relevance.

A.2 Does the proposed Action show awareness of the state-of-the-art of the relevant

scientific/technical/socio-economic fields? 4. Excellent and up to date awareness of relevant scientific/technical fields

3. Good awareness of relevant fields.

2. Defective awareness of relevant fields.

1. Serious lack of awareness of relevant fields.

A.3 Is the proposed Action innovative? 4. Highly innovative: identifies a significant new problem and/or a significant new approach.

3. Innovative in some notable aspects.

2. Not very innovative: the topic is already well-studied and/or the proposal largely follows a well-trodden

approach.

1. Not at all innovative.

A.4 Does the proposed Action answer a need for the networking of experts in the field? 4. Networking in this field ranks amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art and the

proposal uses such a mechanism in a sound manner.

3. Networking in this field ranks amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art, but the

proposal fails to use such a mechanism in a sound manner.

2. Networking in this field is not amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art, although the

proposal uses such a mechanism in a sound manner.

1. Networking in this field is not amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art and the

proposal fails to use such a mechanism in a sound manner.

Tips and Tricks: FP Section A

1. Choose a very important and /or timely topic and

propose the correct approaches

2. Excellent and up to date awareness of relevant

scientific/technical fields – If resubmitting proposal UPDATE the SOTA with any new

Actions/ projects since previous submission even if previous

SOTA was excellent

3. Make proposal highly innovative: a significant new

problem and/or a significant new approach

4. Ensure (and prove) that networking in this field

ranks amongst the best mechanisms to progress

the state-of-the-art and the proposal uses such a

mechanism in a sound manner.

20

21


B IMPACT (Weight 2) B.1 If the proposed Action aims BOTH to meet European economic or societal needs,

AND to contribute to the development of the scientific or technological field, how likely

is it to achieve useful impacts? 4. Important impacts very likely in several respects.

3. Some notable impacts likely.

2. May make some minor impacts.

1. Unlikely to make useful impacts.

B.2 Are there clear plans for stimulating the production of high quality outputs? 4. Plans for outputs are clear, wide-ranging and ambitious.

3. Plans for outputs are reasonable.

2. Plans for outputs are unambitious or defective.

1. Plans for outputs are minimal or absent.

B.3 Is attention given to the involvement of stakeholders in order to increase the

potential application of results (including, where appropriate, fostering their

commercial exploitation)? 4. Stakeholders are already part of experts who took part in the preparation of the proposal.

3. Plans for implication of stakeholders are clear, wide-ranging and feasible.

2. Plans for implication of stakeholders are reasonable.

1. Plans for implication of stakeholders are unambitious or defective.

Tips and Tricks: FP Section B

1. Ensure that important impacts are very likely in

several respects and describe these impacts also

in terms of scientific/ technical/ economic/ societal/

environmental,

2. Clearly describe plans for wide-ranging and

ambitious outputs,

3. Involve as many groups of relevant stakeholders

as possible in the preparation of the proposal (and

ensure that they are listed as having participated in

the proposal).

• Or, at least ensure that plans for implication of

stakeholders are clear, wide-ranging and feasible

22

23


C STRUCTURE AND ORGANISATION (Weight 1) C.1 Is the proposal presented in a clear, convincing, and appropriate way? 4. Very clearly written with compelling argument; fully appropriate format.

3. Well written; argument is easy to follow; appropriate format but may need minor changes;

2. Poorly written, but argument can be followed with effort; and/or defective format.

1. Poorly written; argument is unclear; and/or inappropriate format.

C.2 Are the workplan and organisation appropriate? 4. Workplan and organisation make full, productive and cost-effective use of COST opportunities.

3. Workplan and organisation are reasonable, any defects are minor.

2. Workplan and/or organisation show significant defects.

1. Workplan and/or organisation are lacking or inappropriate or unclear.

C.3 Are the time schedule and the setting of milestones appropriate? 4. Schedule and milestones are well-defined and practical.

3. Schedule and milestones are reasonable.

2. Schedule and/or milestones show some defects.

1. Schedule and/or milestones are lacking or inappropriate or unclear.

C.4 Are appropriate plans made for monitoring and evaluating the achievement of

objectives? 4. Monitoring and evaluation plans are well-defined and practical.

3. Monitoring and evaluation plans are reasonable.

2. Monitoring and evaluation plans show some defects.

1. Monitoring and evaluation plans are lacking or inappropriate or unclear.

Tips and Tricks: FP Section C

1. Ensure proposal is very clearly written with compelling

argument and fully appropriate format (follow template):

• Get (near) native speaker to proof read proposal

• Get someone external to the proposal to check for clarity

2. Ensure workplan and organisation make full, productive

and cost-effective use of COST opportunities.

• Ensure all COST instruments (various meetings, STSMs,

Training Schools, Dissemination are used)

3. Include clear time schedule and appropriate

milestones • Milestones enable the monitoring of progress (milestones are

not the same thing as deliverables)

4. Include well-defined and practical monitoring and

evaluation plans

24

25


D CONTRIBUTION TO WIDER COST GOALS (Weight 1) D.1 How well does the proposed Action aim to involve early stage

researchers? 1. An innovative plan is presented in addition to the standard template in Section E.4 of Full

Proposal

0. Otherwise.

D.2 How well does the proposed Action aim at gender balance? 1. An innovative plan is presented in addition to the standard template in Section E.4 of Full

Proposal

0. Otherwise.

D.3 Does the proposed Action have the potential to contribute to the solution

of global challenges in a global dimension? 1. Proposal will certainly attract interest from a wide range of non-

COST Countries if approved

0. Otherwise.

Tips and Tricks: FP Section D 1. Present an innovative plan for ESR involvement in addition to the

standard template in Section E.4 of Full Proposal:

• Refer to COST 295/09 (CSO Strategy for ESRs) and set targets (eg 20%

of annual budget) for STSMs, at least one Training School per year,

ESRs as Leaders of at least ½ the WGs

• Set target for % of meeting reimbursement places given to ESRs

• ESR as Chair/ Vice Chair of the Action

2. Present an innovative plan for gender balance in addition to the

standard template in Section E.4 of Full Proposal:

• Eg guarantee that at least 40% of the Core Group (Chair, Vice Chair, WG

leaders, STSM manager) will be of either gender

• Guarantee that at least 40% of STSMs and Training School places will

be allocated to either gender

• Gender balance in Chair and Vice Chair roles

3. Prove that proposal will certainly attract interest from a

wide range of non-COST Countries if approved • Include institutions from a wide range (eg different regions) of non-COST

countries in the proposal 26

Full Proposals: tips and tricks Get geographical balance in the network: cover N S E W

Ask DC Members from “missing” countries to suggest contacts

www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fps?dc_members

Ask MC Members from those countries in relevant Actions for

suggestions www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fps/Actions

www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fps/Actions/FP1207?management

(but don’t just recycle the same people into your proposal)

Do not just resubmit an unsuccessful FP7 proposal as

COST Action proposal

FP7 = research funding; COST = networking funding

FP7 has Work Packages (WP), COST has Working Groups (WG)

Dissemination: best to have a transversal Dissemination

Task Force that draws people from each WG, NOT a WG

Dissemination

27

http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fps?dc_members

http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fps/Actions

http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fps/Actions/FP1207?management




IV: DC Hearings

DCH-> New Action success rate ~ 53% (44%-80%)

Proposals: tips and tricks

DC Hearings Follow the instructions in invitation email

Short overview of objectives, outcomes and

impact of proposal

Focus on addressing issues raised by the EEP

Practice the presentation

Questions:

Listen to the full question (don’t interrupt

the questioner)

Give calm clear concise (non-defensive)

answer.

29

COST Actions - examples Biosafety of forest transgenic trees: improving the

scientific basis for safe tree development and

implementation of EU policy directives - FP0905

To evaluate and substantiate the

scientific knowledge relevant for

genetically modified tree (GMT)

biosafety protocols by putting

together already existing information

generated in various European

countries as the basis for future EU

policy and regulation for the

environmental impact assessment

and the safe development and

practical use of GMTs.

30

COST Actions - examples

Experimental and Computational Micro-

Characterisation Techniques in Wood Mechanics

– FP0802

Exploiting emerging experimental

and computational techniques for

improving the knowledge of

microstructural features of wood

and their impact on macroscopic

material behaviour will create new

possibilities for the development

and engineering design of

innovative wood-based products in

the future.

Stimulating the use of wood as a renewable and CO2

neutral raw material will contribute to a sustainable

development in Europe. 31

COST Actions - examples

Impact of Renewable Materials in Packaging for

Sustainability - Development of Renewable Fibre and

Bio-based Materials for New Packaging Applications -

FP1003

To enhance knowledge

concerning materials derived

from the forest sector and thus

identify potential new renewable

packaging solutions.

• Issue a set of guidelines explaining

the different end-of life technologies

that are available for renewable

packaging solutions.

• Build four technology roadmaps to

direct future research. 32

BMBS FA FPS MPNS CMST ESSEM ICT TUD ISCH TDP TOTAL

PP 75 44 20 39 20 61 42 30 146 98 575

FP 15 10 8 9 13 11 12 9 14 13 114

PP-FP 23% 40% 23% 65% 18% 29% 30% 10% 13% 20%

DC H 10 6 5 9 9 9 6 8 6 68

FP-DCH 67% 75% 56% 69% 82% 75% 67% 57% 46% 60%

New

Action 5 3 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 36

DCH-New

Action 50% 50% 80% 44% 44% 44% 50% 63% 67% 53%

PP-New

Action 7% 15% 10% 20% 7% 10% 10% 3% 4% 7% 33

Proposals: tips and tricks

Who can help you: CNC BE

Chairs of running Actions

from BE

relevant to your area

DC Members

from BE

from countries that you need

contacts in

34

Action Chairs from BE

35

domai

n code contact_e

mail name name city contact_ph

one

FA FA12

01

ann.vanso

om@ugen

t.be

Prof Ann Van

Soom Ghent University

Merelbek

e ++32

92647550

ISCH IS090

6

patriarche

@fusl.ac.

be

Dr Geoffroy

Patriarche Facultés universitaires Saint-

Louis (FUSL) Brussels

+ 32 (0)2

787 93 23

ISCH IS120

5 licata@ul

b.ac.be

Dr Laurent

Licata Université libre de Bruxelles Brussels 26503237

MPN

S MP09

01

carla.bitte

ncourt@u

mons.ac.b

e

Dr Carla

Bittencourt University of Mons Mons

326537385

1

MPN

S MP11

04

herve.lam

y@aerono

mie.be Dr Herve Lamy

Belgian Institute for Space

Aeronomy Brussels

322373041

8

MPN

S MP11

05

paul.kieke

ns@UGe

nt.be

Prof. Paul

Kiekens Faculty of Engineering

Ghent University

Gent

(Zwijnaar

de)

+32 9

2645735

MPN

S MP12

01

victor.mos

hchalkov

@fys.kule

uven.ac.b

e

Prof Victor

Moshchalkov KU Leuven Leuven

321632761

8

MPN

S TD09

06

Patrick.Fl

ammang

@umons.

ac.be

Dr Patrick

Flammang Université de Mons Mons

+32-65-

373439

TUD TU09

05

jan.belis

@UGent.

be Prof Jan Belis Ghent University Ghent

329264547

8

www.cost.eu

Domain pages: e.g.

www.cost.eu/fps

Open Call:

www.cost.eu/opencall

Guidelines:

www.cost.eu/guidelines

FAQ:

www.cost.eu/service/faq

Reciprocal Agreements:

www.cost.eu/about_cost/reci

procal_agreements

Library:

www.cost.eu/library

Events:

www.cost.eu/events

36

http://www.cost.eu/fps

http://www.cost.eu/opencall

http://www.cost.eu/guidelines

http://www.cost.eu/service/faq

http://www.cost.eu/about_cost/reciprocal_agreements

http://www.cost.eu/about_cost/reciprocal_agreements

http://www.cost.eu/library

http://www.cost.eu/events

COST Office

Avenue Louise 149

1050 Brussels, Belgium

T: +32 (0)2 533 3800

F: +32 (0)2 533 3890

[email protected]

www.cost.eu

COST News by e-mail?

Sign up at http://www.cost.eu/notification

http://www.linkedin.com/

groupRegistration?gid=1699127

http://www.facebook.com/

COST.Programme

http://twitter.com/COSToffice

http://www.linkedin.com/groupRegistration?gid=1699127

http://www.facebook.com/COST.Programme

http://twitter.com/COSToffice

cost evaluation procedure · selection procedure stage 1.a: preliminary proposal - domain...

Documents