The French National Research Agency Projects for science

Voir cette page en français

Projects and ResultsWork Programme 2014Details of the second evaluation stage

Details of the second evaluation stage

From 6th May 2014, closing date for the full proposal submission phase, to mid-July 2014, the second evaluation stage was underway. What exactly happened during these two months?

To carry out this evaluation, ANR, in accordance with the international standards in this area, called upon scientific evaluation panels comprising about 35 key scientists from the scientific communities involved and specialist experts from the field(s) concerned by the proposal.

A five-phase process

  1. Eligibility check: As soon as full proposal submission stage is closed, ANR verifies the eligibility of the proposals with respect to the criteria described in the Work Programme 2014, consulting the members of the scientific evaluation panel for their opinion if necessary. It also verifies that the full proposal is in conformity with the pre-proposal selected in the first stage.
     
  2. Evaluation by the ad hoc peer reviewers: The full proposals are evaluated by at least two reviewers external to the various panels called upon by ANR. The reviewers work individually and confidentially, without interacting with third parties. The only elements at their disposal are the constituents of the full proposal as submitted by the scientific coordinator on the closing date of the second submission stage.
     
    The evaluations are carried out on the strict basis of the criteria described in the Work Programme 2014, that is to say:

    • Relevance of any changes in the proposal with respect to the pre-proposal (eliminatory criterion if the differences are deemed major)
    • Scientific excellence and/or innovative nature for technological research
    • Quality of project construction and its feasibility
    • Overall impact of the project
       

    These reviewers fill out an individual evaluation report in which each evaluation criterion is rated on a scale of 0 to 5 with written argued comments for each one.
     

  3. Evaluation by the members of the scientific evaluation panel: The full proposals are then evaluated by at least two members of the specific panel overseeing the proposals. They evaluate the proposals individually, having at their disposal the individual evaluation reports drawn up by the ad hoc peer reviewers and the information relative to the label awarded by the competitiveness clusters if applicable. The members designated as rapporteurs for a proposal draw up their own individual evaluation report applying the same criteria and the same rating system as the peer reviewers.
     
  4. Collegial discussion within the scientific evaluation panel: The panel meets once all the ad hoc peer reviews have been carried out. The rapporteurs briefly present the objectives of each proposal, make a synthesis of the peer reviewers' evaluation and their own opinion, highlighting their strong and weak points. The collegial discussion examines each proposal in turn, providing a competitive evaluation of each one. It gives all the members the opportunity to compare the quality of the proposals which they had to evaluate with respect to all the proposals evaluated by the panel.
     
    A final evaluation report synthesizes the consensus reached by the panel members for each proposal. The panel's discussions result in the ranking of the proposals with respect to one another.
     
  5. Selecting the projects and informing the coordinators: The final selection is decided by the Director General of ANR on the basis of the ranking proposed by the scientific evaluation panel and according to the budget to allocate. The list of full proposals selected by the ANR (main list and possibly a complementary list) is then published on ANR's website.

ANR informs all the scientific coordinators of the result of this second stage. They receive the final evaluation report validated by the scientific evaluation panel chair.

Find out more: