The User Selection Panel and the Scientific review

The Project proposals are peer-reviewed by a User Selection Panel (USP). The panel is composed of international members with strong expertise in the field of marine biotechnology. They evaluate and select the proposals according to clearly defined Selection criteria (see below).

User Selection Panel composition

The User Selection Panel is composed of four members of the EMBRIC Advisory Board and two external members.

Advisory Board members

  • Steinar Bergseth (ERANET Marine Biotech)
  • Ronald Frank (EU-OPENSCREEN)
  • Ilaria Nardello (EMBRC)
  • Erko Stackerbrandt (MIRRI)

External Members

  • Ibon Cancio (University of the Basque Country)
  • Michael Thorndyke (University of Gothenburg)

 


Evaluation procedure

Following the Eligibility check, the Access Officer assigns the Project proposals over the USP members given their particular expertise on the topic of the project. Each Project proposal is evaluated by two USP members. The final score of a Project proposal is the sum of the marks of the two evaluators. If the two evaluators’ scores differ by more than 2 points, a third member evaluates the Project Proposal. The final score will then be the sum of the two closest evaluators’ scores. The Access Officer will rank the Project proposals based on the final scores.

 


Selection criteria

The USP evaluates Project Proposals according to three criteria:

a. Scientific excellence

Project proposals should be of high scientific quality, with clearly defined background and with innovative and realistic goals to achieve. The significance of the Project in the context of international research and standards in the field as well as the relevance of the project to the scientist’s overall scientific work will be considered. Scores are:

  • 4. Very good
  • 3. Good
  • 2. Average
  • 1. Not competitive

b. Benefit of the access to different Research Infrastructures

The aim of EMBRIC is to support advanced research projects that benefit from getting access to high-end technologies or services, which are offered by different Reserach Infrastructures. Scores are:

  • 3. High benefit
  • 2. Average benefit
  • 1. No clear benefit of accessing multiple RIs

c. Expected impact

The Project’s impact in science, society and/or health is expected to be:

  • 3. High
  • 2. Average
  • 1. Negligible

The threshold score for the acceptance of a Project for one evalutator is 6.

 


Back to the Transnational Access main page