Typical comments from evaluators of EU research proposals (Corn, 2010) a) Scientific and/or technological excellence i) Soundness Of Concept And Quality Of Objectives • The proposal does not fit or only partially fits within the call text. • The objectives are not clear/measurable/quantified • The objectives are not objective enough/are too ambitious/unrealistic
125 • The proposal mentions targets X and Y but why does it not specify other essential targets for their approach • Why do detailed technical objectives only come after month 6 of the project and not in the proposal ii) Progress Beyond The State Of The Art • They do not explain the state-of-the-art worldwide, only their own state-of-the- art. • They refer to an outdated state-of-the-art. • They do not explain the advantages of their solution compared to other, existing approaches. • Company X already has a similar device/process on the market why is the proposed one better • There is no clear comparison between the proposal objective and the potentially well identified) state-of-the art. iii) Quality And Effectiveness Of The ST Methodology And Associated Work Plan • The interaction between the tasks and work package is not described. • It is not clear who is doing what. • The description of methodology is very generic. How can I have confidence that they know what they are doing • They do not explain why they do it this way. There are better ways of doing the same. • They have not explained how they will solve problem X. Do they even know that it will be a problem • There is no risk analysis and contingency plans are inappropriate.