Giorgio Rossi - the CoPoRI website

HOW IT WORKS
Giorgio Rossi, Trieste 25 September 2014
Transition from Orange to Blue Period
More Landscape Facilities in the Picture
Pablo Picasso 1901-1905
Landscape Analysis work in progress: all RI in PSE offering open-access
Drafting Groups active within the Strategy Work Groups
no-double
nationalitiies in
each DG
Consultation of
ERANET and
other relevant
Roadmap
Special Expert Group(s)
experts from
Europe
Preview 25/9/2014
Maps of the main RIs in
the landscape
Role of ESFRI projects
Access to RI abroad
Full Landscape by end winter 2014-2015
Reference for the new Final check,
projects to be selected introduce
EMERGING and
PHASE-OUT
project with
impact
WORK IN PROGRESS
ROADMAP
The Selection and Assessment Process of the Projects
Presentation to ESFRI EB
National Delgations
collect and present
on behalf of MS(s)
and AS (S)
or EIROFORUM
presents
SWG starts analysis
ESFRI asks EB to
perform
Science
Pre-screening and to
report to Forum
Scientific Analysis:
Pan European Relevance
(eliminate uneligible
projects)
Uniqueness
Increase of capacity
Application of Indicators by
and attributes to
SWGs
Global Competitiveness
SWG/EB
Analysis of National
Strategies
ALL PROJECTS undergo
independent PEER REVIEW
Analysis of Smart
Specialization Strategies
National Roadmaps
Assessment Matrix
Governance
Management
Financial Plan
AEG
Matrix
Indicators
Peer Review
on-line
submission
IMPLEMENTATION
Group
E-IRG
white
paper
Submission Form on Commission
EU Survey machine (step 1)
Who can submit:
• National Delegations on behalf of Member State(s)
• EIROFORUM on behalf of its Council
Only this form may be used to submit proposals. Deadline: 31 March 2015 at 17:00 CET
Three parts to be completed fully:
PART A: PROJECT SUMMARY
PART B: SCIENTIFIC IMPACT,
PAN EUROPEAN RELEVANCE,
SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT & e-NEEDS;
PART C: IMPLEMENTATION
text
Check lists
Reference:
ESFRI ex-ante INDICATORS
(ESFRI website)
If you believe a question does not apply to your proposal, you may
enter ‘not applicable’ and explain !
National
Roadmaps
and their updates
Roadmap in place
Roadmap under preparation
National funding reserved for
new/updated RIs
Is the project on a
National Roadmap
• YES
• No, not yet
If you believe a question does not apply to your proposal, you may
enter ‘not applicable’ and explain !
• Delegations can start preparing the proposals
offline, based on the Questionnaire Template, as the
proposal must be completed online in one go as no
saving of work underway is technically possible.
Scientific evaluation
Each SWG will agree on a list of three
independent experts to be asked to supply a
peer-review of the projects.
They must be independent and formally
declare not to be in conflict of interest with
the proposal.
The experts will assess the science quality of
the projects. Their reports will provide advice
to the SWG.
Peer Review
The lead SWG is responsible for the execution of
the evaluation of
1) the scientific excellence,
2) the pan-European relevance,
3) socio-economic impact and
4) the e-needs (infrastructure and services)
based on the information provided in Part B.
The SWG will assess the Scientific Uniqueness, the
Increase of Capacity brought about in the given field,
and their impact on Global Competitiveness.
Peer Review and Science Evaluation
The new projects are tested by the SWG against the
Indicators of Pan-European relevance
INDICATORS of pan-European relevance
and extra information can be asked from the projects;
The new projects are assessed for e-infrastructure
aspects making use of e-IRG experts.
E-IRG policy papers
• Scientific impact /scientific relevance for the
respective scientific area in the European RI
ecosystem
• European added value/ pan-European relevance
• Socio-economic impact
• E-needs
Each SWG will put forward to the EB an evaluation per project
scoring each of the criteria and an overall score:
• very high - issues under assessment are outstandingly covered;
• high - issues under assessment are comprehensively covered;
• medium - issues under assessment are adequately covered, but the
proposal shows weakness in a specific area of the criteria. Enhance
the projects’ chances of future success may require significant
changes to a specific part of the proposal.
• low - issues under assessment are weak and proper evidence of
project chances for success is lacking or omitted.
Overall Science Evaluation
The SWG presents an overall recommendation to the EB and Forum
in the three categories:
• candidate projects for the 2016 ESFRI
Roadmap (2-3 max. per SWG);
• emerging projects to be mentioned in a
separate part of the final report, not yet
ready to be included in the “LIST”;
• rejected projects - projects that shall not be
considered further for the Roadmap 2016
with detailed explanation for this rejection
ASSESSMENT OF MATURITY BY THE IMPLEMENTATION GROUP
USING THE METHOD OF THE AEG-2012:
See presentation by David Bohmert
Final check and proposal to Plenary Forum (step 5)
Based on the A) overall recommendation for strong candidate projects from each SWG and the B)
maturity recommendation per project from the IG, the EB will execute a final check on the following
criteria:
•
•
•
balance between the thematic fields of the SWG;
relevance of projects for EU policies;
global dimension of projects.
The EB will present a recommendation per project to the Forum
Final decision (step 6)
The Plenary Forum in fall 2015 decides on the status of
each proposed project by attributing:
‘retained projects’ resulting in appearance on the
2016 ESFRI Roadmap,
‘emerging projects’, resulting in a list of emerging
projects complemented by ‘gaps analysis’,
‘rejected projects’.
And decides the PUBLICATION OF THE
According to the 10-year rule we know that:
There will be at least 10 projects phasing out in 2017
making room for a
ESFRI Roadmap 2018 update
There will be at least 6 projects phasing out in 2019,
making room for a
ESFRI Roadmap 2020 update