ARIMNET 2 –Task 3.1 Evaluation of calls, calls procedures, and impact assessment

QUESTIONNAIRE TO EVALUATION COMMITTEE

Background data
1. I am located in: 1 ? Europe 2 ? Africa3 ? Others:
Panel
2. Please, indicate the number and details of the proposals evaluated for you:
a) Number of proposals evaluated:
3. Indicate the topic (s) you were selected for evaluation
a) Topic (s):
4. How do you judge the relationships between the experts of the Evaluation Committee?
a) 1? very good 2? good 3? rather poor 4? very poor 5? don’t know
b) Comments and suggestions:
Evaluation procedure
This section focuses on the process of evaluation of proposals under the ARIMNet Call 2011. Please select one answer to each question thatmost closely corresponds to your views on theevaluation process. If you wish to add more detail, please use the space at the end of this section to expand on yourresponses.
5.I believe the proposals I ranked (on the basis of external peer review scores) demonstrated a good understanding of theapplication requirements outlined by ARIMNET.
a) 1? agree strongly 2? agree 4 ? neither agree nor disagree 3? disagree 4? disagree strongly
6. How do you judge on the whole the quality of the work performed by external reviews during the evaluation procedure?
a) 1? very good 2? good 3? rather poor 4? very poor 5? don’t know
b) Comments and suggestions:
7. How do you evaluate the information and support you received from the Call Office (e-mails, and guidance document) and the Call Board.
a) 1? very good 2? good 3? rather poor 4? very poor 5? don’t know
b) Comments and suggestions:
8. How do you judge the categories you had to apply for the classification of proposals? (very good, should be accepted (A), good but would need further improvements to be financed (B), to be refused (C))
a) 1? very adequate 2?adequate 3?not adequate 4?disagree 5? don’t know
b) Comments and suggestions:
9. How do you judge the evaluation criteria external reviews had to apply for the evaluation (according with the “Guidelines for evaluation”)?
  1. Science and outcome (50)

a)How well this proposal does complies with the aim(s) of the call?( (state of the art, position of the research problems, inter-disciplinarity)
1? very relevant 2 ? relevant 3 ? of minor relevance 4 ? not relevant 5 ? no comment
b)Scientific and technical quality of the proposal (originality, methods, application of field(s) of expertise)
1? very relevant 2 ? relevant 3 ? of minor relevance 4 ? not relevant 5 ? no comment
c)Global impact of the project (output and innovation contribution: e.g. potential of the expected results transfer for future Mediterranean agriculture and policies)
1? very relevant 2 ? relevant 3 ? of minor relevance 4 ? not relevant 5 ? no comment
  1. Management, Networking and added value (50)

a)Quality of the Consortium (international competitiveness of participating research groups in the field(s) of the proposal)
1? very relevant 2 ? relevant 3 ? of minor relevance 4 ? not relevant 5 ? no comment
b)Project management (organization and feasibility: prospects for success with regards to the work and financial plan including time schedule)
1? very relevant 2 ? relevant 3 ? of minor relevance 4 ? not relevant 5 ? no comment
c)Added value to the ARIMNet participants research communities (how does the proposal structure new network in Mediterranean agricultural research or strengthen and widen previous networks)
1? very relevant 2 ? relevant 3 ? of minor relevance 4 ? not relevant 5 ? no comment
10.How do you judge the time from provided information until evaluation started?
a) 1? very good 2? good 3? rather poor 4? very poor 5? don’t know
b) Comments and suggestions:
11.How do you judge the time available for the evaluation?
a) 1? very good 2? good 3? rather poor 4? very poor 5? don’t know
b) Comments and suggestions:
12. How do you judge the physical meetings (face-to-face) for the final decision?
a) Importance: 1? very important 2? important 3? minor 4? not important 5? don’t know
b) Comments and suggestions:
13. Any other comment or suggestion to improve the evaluation procedure?