| Aims and Objectives of the Conference Scheme |
|---|
The ESF Conferences Scheme brings together researchers from different nationalities, backgrounds, disciplines and at different career stages to jointly discuss the latest developments in new and emerging fields of research. Through their format, ESF Research Conferences promote free discussion and exchange of information, and aim to create long-term networks between participants. Participation is open to researchers from academia, industry, society and politics worldwide.
ESF Conferences aim to contribute to the strengthening of a globally competitive European Research Area as laid-out in the ESF-EUROHORCS Science Policy Briefing ‘EUROHORCs and ESF Vision on a Globally Competitive ERA and their Road Map for Actions’ (see http://www.esf.org/publications.html).
Aims of the scheme:
• Identifying emerging and strategically important topics by addressing questions raised by the scientific community
• Strengthen the link between science and society; foster exchanges with politics and the private sector
• To develop the research careers of Young and Early Stage Researchers
• Showcase regional excellence of European research, research performing organisations and universities through funding partnerships
• Connecting European research to the world
Please bear this information in mind when reviewing the proposal.
| Evaluation Process |
|---|
Referees may refuse to review a proposal if they think that it falls out of their field of expertise or if they think they have a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest occurs when a person may benefit either professionally or personally by the success or failure of a proposal.
Should you not feel suitably qualified to perform this review, are directly involved with or have a vested interest in the proposal, or cannot meet the deadline, please contact the office immediately.
| Evaluation Criteria |
|---|
Proposals must be evaluated according to the following evaluation criteria:
Scientific quality, scope and – where appropriate – interdisciplinarity of the proposal
The proposed conference should be a high-level conference and should fulfill a need in the scientific community. The topic should be at the forefront of scientific research and at the very highest scientific level with respect to the selection of sessions and the choice of speakers. For interdisciplinary proposals, proposers should describe how each discipline will be covered and how interaction between disciplines is to be achieved.
Scientific relevance in terms of novelty, originality and timeliness
The proposal should focus on a topic that is an acknowledged or emerging challenge for European research. The event should be unique and not duplicate already existing events. Novelty and innovation should be present either in the topic itself, or in the approach that is taken to discuss this topic (e.g. interdisciplinary).
European dimension and added value to the international research community
The proposal should focus on a topic that is not just of local or regional importance, but that is relevant to researchers from different regions, countries, sectors and possibly even disciplines. It has to be evident that there is a need to discuss this topic in a European or international context.
Scientific quality of the draft programme
Through the draft programme, proposers should demonstrate that they can implement and achieve the ideas and objectives described in the conference proposal. The draft programme should reflect the aims and objectives of the ESF Research Conference Scheme.
| Scoring and Comments |
|---|
You will be asked to score each evaluation criteria on a scale ranging from ‘average or less’ to ‘outstanding’. For each criterion under examination, score values indicate the following:
| Average or Less | There are serious inherent weaknesses in relation to the criterion in question |
| Good | While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are weaknesses that would need correcting |
| Very Good | The proposal addresses the criterion well, although certain improvements are possible |
| Excellent | The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question |
| Outstanding/Top Priority | The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion and is highly relevant and timely. The proposal demonstrates exceptional qualities and depth |
Maintain consistency in your scoring throughout the report. Projects will be ranked according to their merit.
You are also required to provide a comment for each criteria being assessed. You are encouraged to write your comments in a way that clearly reflects your overall opinions and specific strengths and weaknesses of the proposal for each criterion. The comments must be consistent with the score awarded.
Questions:
Any questions you would like to address to the proposer must be written in Section 6 of the report (see below).
| Further Information on the Review and Rebuttal process |
|---|
In order to improve the process, referees have the opportunity to ask the convener specific questions related to the proposal. This may be necessary if the proposal is unclear or clarification of a specific point is required. Referees must use section 6 of the report to ask questions. Questions in any other part of the form will not be considered. Proposers will then be given the opportunity to respond during the rebuttal process.
The ESF Conferences rebuttal process allows a proposer to respond to the reviews of his or her proposal. The rebuttal is for addressing factual errors in the reviews and for answering specific questions posed by referees in section 6 of the referee report. It is limited to 500 words of text per section, and must be self-contained (i.e. no URLs to external pages; no uploads). No revisions of or additions to the original proposal text will be accepted.
| Best Practice Tips for International Peer Review |
|---|
In order to support referees during this process and to ensure the standard of the reviews received, we have developed several best practice tips for writing an international peer review. Ideally, referees should consider all of the key points below.
Accuracy:
Ensure that your review is technically accurate.
Assessment:
Assess and mark the proposal exactly as it is described and presented. Do not make any assumptions or interpretations about the project in addition to what the proposers themselves have written. Keep to the evaluation criteria as described above. You should also consider whether the conveners substantiate the claims made in the proposal, whether the science is sound.
Productive:
Where justified, give recommendations for modifications to the proposal. Reviews will be accessible to the proposers at the end of this process so please ensure comments are constructive. Avoid general statements such as “The objectives could have been better described”. Also avoid generalizations such as “Organization X is weak in this area”. Say rather “It has not been demonstrated in the proposal that the applicant has the capacity to run the project”.
Well-written:
The review should be well written, organized, and free of typographical and spelling errors. Your comments should be concise, complete and comprehensible. You should use polite and correct language, but do not hide the facts.
