1.      Evaluation process

Requests for No-cost Products and applications for Personalized Training are evaluated by a Selection Panel (SP) comprised of one external (non-Infravec) members and one Infravec partner. A third reviewer will be added for large projects or sensitive reviews.

In the context of Infravec-ISIDORe, all projects need to include specific examples of disease(s) impacted in their justifications. See the ISIDORe website for a full list of priorities.

1.1.   Project information

Reviewers receive request/application information from the Product & Quality Manager (TNA Manager) who operates the online shop.

For products and access to facility requests:

• Product details
• User details: name, employer name and address, researcher status, year of the last degree
• User CV
• Scientific project details
• A list of up to 5 (minimum 3) publications relevant to the project

For Personalized Training applications:

• Training session details
• Applicant details: name, employer name and address, researcher status, year of the last degree
• Application details
• Applicant CV
• Letter of support of the applicant’s supervisor

1.2.   Scoring and decision

Evaluations by the SP consist of a numerical score from 0-3 (0: lowest, 3: highest score) in each of three areas, as described on the  No-cost Products checkout form or the Personalized Training application form.

For products and access to facility requests:

• Technical quality
• Expected scientific outcomes
• Applicant capacity building

For Personalized Training applications:

• Scientific justification
• Applicant capacity building
• CV and letter of support

The evaluation of the 3 criteria is done online, on an evaluation form.

Each area has a text field for short bullet-point style comments on strengths and weaknesses. Longer text comments are not required. Reviewers’ comments should not be identifiable.

1.3.   Evaluation outcome

The TNA Manager collates the scores and evaluations, calculates the final score out of the 3 individual scores of the reviewers, and sends the evaluation feedback (Request “accepted”, “rejected with revision encouraged”, or “rejected”) to the applicant. Scores and summary texts of the evaluation are anonymously provided to the applicant and to other evaluators of the same proposal.

A request for products / application for Personalized Training is acceptable if the total score summed across the three criteria 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 request/ application as unacceptable (“rejected”).

A request/application with a total average score below 6 is unacceptable (“rejected”).

In the case of a total average score above 6, but when one of the reviewers gives a score below 6, the TNA Manager requests the User to provide more information in response of the reviewer’s comments. The additional information provided by the User is sent to the reviewer for re-evaluation.

If the reviewer does not approve the second version of the request/application, the TNA Manager will request project evaluation by a third reviewer. If no clear decision emerges from the additional reviewer, a final resolution is found by the vote of a majority of Infravec Management.

1.4.   Rejected project proposals and resubmission

Rejected requests/applications can be revised by the applicant and resubmitted. For those with promise but numerical scores that indicate major deficiencies, evaluator text comments should highlight the areas of weakness that need to be improved by the applicant.

A new request/application must be resubmitted. The User is invited to clearly describe the aspects of the original proposal that were changed, and how the changes strengthen the new proposal. It will be re-evaluated by the same reviewers.

1.5.   Amended project requests (not applicable to Personalized Training)

After a submitted request 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 in some cases.

An amendment is required for major project modifications: addition of new products, requestor PI change or other changes modifying the request substantially.

For a change in the number of units ordered or additional product options, the modification of the request may be done by the TNA Manager, directly on the online request.  Those modifications are typically requested after discussion with the product provider or others, to increase the statistical or technical power of the project. They can be done before or after the evaluation, but not after production has started.

2.      Selection Panel guidelines

2.1.   Evaluation criteria

The evaluation is made by reviewers from the Selection panel. The goals of the evaluation process are:

• Identify and support technically sound community projects or scientifically justified training;
• Exclude technically deficient projects that would likely waste Infravec resources;
• Support projects or Personalized Training that contribute to career development of junior researchers;
• Support projects or Personalized Training that aid capacity strengthening of institutions in countries with less developed research infrastructures;
• Support projects or Personalized Training that strengthen the capacities of small or medium enterprise (SME) commercial companies working in the vector biology field, including product development and improvement;
• Strengthen vector biology by attracting and supporting new researchers from outside the vector biology field.

Acceptable categories of requests for products can include but not necessarily limited to:

• hypothesis-based studies;
• risky studies with potential for innovation;
• exploratory and pilot studies designed to collect feasibility data;
• descriptive studies, for example designed to generate a useful public database;
• public health activities, for example providing insect samples as controls for a vector surveillance agency, or the use of SIT mosquitoes for field releases to collect efficacy or other data.

Acceptable categories of applications for Personalized Training can include but not necessarily limited to applicants who need to learn a technique that will be used at their home lab:

• in the context of an ongoing or future research programme
• for its implementation in a technical facility

Evaluation of requests for products and applications for Personalized Training is based on scientific merit, taking into account that weight should be given to users who:

• have not previously received the same Infravec product or Personalized Training;
• 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.

2.2.   Ecological Risk Assessment of Requests for Infravec Live Vector Resources

In addition to the scientific evaluation of User requests for Infravec products and services, performed by a Selection Panel to determine the eligibility of the submitted project, all user requests for Infravec live vector resources are subject to an ecological risk assessment, based on ECDC vector distribution maps and Infravec internal or externally solicited expertise.

The expected outcomes of the described ecological risk assessment, might be the following, depending on the severity of the risk:

• The requestor might be asked to provide further justifications of infrastructure, expertise and history in handling the requested species.
• The request might be rejected in cases where ecological risk of species introduction is assessed as too high.

3.      Conflict of interest and scientific ethics policy for project evaluation

Before evaluating a request/application, reviewers should make sure there is no conflict of interest (COI) between them and the applicant.

Situations that create an actual or potential COI include:

• when the reviewer has collaborated within the preceding three years with the applicant,
• has co-authored publications with the applicant,
• and/or has mentored or trained the applicant (for example, supervised as postdoc or student in the laboratory);
• is in collaboration, is negotiating collaboration, or is preparing an application or publication with the applicant;
• has a primary professional appointment in the same institute as the applicant;
• is in a situation that could create the appearance or concern of COI to a reasonable observer.

General professional or scientific interactions, including joint participation with the applicant in large European networks or projects, or past collaboration or mentorship, do not automatically create a COI if they do not respond to the criteria above.

Proposals requesting access to Infravec resources will be treated by the project and evaluators as confidential according to standard scientific non-disclosure and confidentiality practices.

Please contact the TNA Manager if you have questions.