The proposal submitted via the web interface is sent to the review group, and to coordinator (Herman) and administrator (Jeanna) for information.
Identification of Conflicts: Any of the 3 review group members with a conflict of interest (named in the proposal, same institution as proposal partner, etc.) notify the group and withdraw from the process for this proposal. If there are at least 2 members of the review group still 'in', move to step 3; otherwise refer to Coordinator for action (appoint, or act as, a second group member). If the Coordinator has a conflict, refer to the Board.
The (at least) two review group members independently verify that the proposal meets the formal criteria: diversity of country etc. Proposals that do not meet these criteria fail immediately on those grounds.
The review group members commission a specialist review, with a 2 week deadline, from a suitable expert who considers the first two criteria in point 4 below, from a specialist perspective.
Meanwhile the review group members prepare brief general reviews (but including — of course — specialist knowledge if they are specialists in the area of the proposal) with respect to the criteria:
[PRP] how innovative is the core idea (appropriateness for EURON funding)?
[SIG] how well does the proposed SIG serve a specific interest of a well-defined community, which is not already covered by other resourcing?
do the partners have appropriate expertise, roles and resources for the project to succeed?
are the deliverables and evaluation criteria clear, appropriate and commensurate with the proposed scope and requested funding?
Using the specialist review and its own generalist ones, the review group clarifies any uncertain points with the proposers and completes the reporting documentation, which includes a brief but argued recommendation to the Board.
The Board has 5 days to object to the proposal, on argued grounds. Members of the Board with a conflict of interest do not take part in any discussion.
The review group members summarize the discussion if necessary and prepare a revised recommendation, which is passed to the Coordinator for implementation.
A (possibly edited) printed version of the HTML proposal forms part of the contract between KTH and the proposers.
Deprecated (due to lack of manpower for maintenance).
