CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES FOR INFRAVEC2 SELECTION PANEL PROJECT EVALUATION
©IRD Maxime Jacquet
Scoring and decision
Each project will be evaluated by a Selection Panel (SP) comprised of two external (non-Infravec2) members and one Infravec2 partner. Evaluations by the SP will consist of a numerical score from 0-3 in each of three areas, as described on the evaluation form:
- Technical quality
- Expected scientific outcomes
- Applicant capacity building
Each area has a text field for short bullet-point style comments on strengths and weaknesses. Longer text comments are not required.
A project is acceptable if the total score summed across the three above areas is ≥6, given that each of the individual areas is scored ≥1. A score of zero in any of the three areas (“fails to address the criterion”) will class the project as unacceptable. A project with a total score below 6 is unacceptable.
The TNA Product Manager (Heloise Lemoine, IRD, Montpellier FR) will collate the scores and evaluations, and will send a provisional decision (Accept, Reject with revision encouraged, or Reject) to the SP members who evaluated the project. The evaluators can object within 2 business days, after which the decision becomes final and is transmitted to the applicant.
Rejected project proposals can be revised by the applicant and resubmitted. For projects with promise but numerical scores that indicate major deficiencies, evaluator text comments should highlight for the applicant the areas of weakness that need to be improved.
In absence of a clear decision, the TNA Product Manager will request project evaluation by a second SP of three members, if necessary with final resolution by a majority of the Infravec2 Steering Committee.
Guidelines for evaluation
The goals of the evaluation process include to:
- identify and support technically sound community projects
- exclude technically deficient projects that would likely waste Infravec2 resources
- support projects that contribute to career development of junior researchers
- support projects that aid capacity strengthening of institutions in countries with less developed research infrastructures
- strengthen vector biology by attracting and supporting new researchers from outside the vector biology field
Acceptable categories of projects can include hypothesis-based studies, or risky studies with potential for innovation, or exploratory and pilot studies designed to collect feasibility data, or descriptive studies, for example designed to generate a useful public database.
Evaluation of projects is based on scientific merit, taking into account that weight should be given to users who:
- have not previously received the same Infravec2 product
- are working in countries where no equivalent research infrastructure exists
Potential for applicant and/or institutional capacity building should be weighed as an important evaluation criterion. The level of experience and country origin of the applicant are indicated by the biographical information provided by the applicant.
Amended project requests
After a submitted project is evaluated and approved, applicants can amend their project proposal. Amendments must be submitted before production of the material, and will be subject to an expedited re-evaluation.
An amendment is required for any modification of the amount or nature of products ordered, for example a different number of product units, or a different product (e.g., vector species or source colony). The applicant might decide that an amendment is warranted after discussion with the product provider or others, to increase the statistical or technical power of the project. The product provider is not able to alter the amount or nature of the ordered and approved products without an amendment.
Resubmitted project requests
A rejected project proposal can be revised, but it must be resubmitted as a new project. Please clearly describe the aspects of the original proposal that were changed, and how the changes strengthen the proposed project.
Please contact us if you have questions.