Evaluation process

All document will be treated confidentially – no information will be circulated outside the assessment process.
The scientific evaluation process will be anonymous. All applications will be assessed by a disciplinary panel set up by the European Science Foundation. Up to four review panels will be constituted to reflect the scientific profile of all application submitted. Review panel will assess applications submitted to the three TAs falling in their domain.
All applications will be made available to review panel members before review panels convene and each application will be assessed in detail by two review panel members (rapporteurs) before the review panels meet.
During the review panel meeting (by teleconference), all applications will be presented in detail by the rapporteurs and discussed by the full review panel. Review panel will agree on an overall mark for each application and produce one ranked list per TA. These lists will then be integrated into three ranked lists across all themes (one/TA).

Evaluation criteria

Each proposal will be assessed on four criteria:

  • Criterion 1 - Innovative nature of the proposal (originality of the research proposed and/or of the methodology to be applied)
  • Criterion 2 - Science and Technology excellence (Overall scientific or technical merit of the proposal, soundness of concept, and quality of the objectives).
  • Criterion 3 - Implementation (The quality, effectiveness and feasibility of the methodology and associated work, relevance of the facility/site, strategy for utilisation and publication of the new data)
  • Criterion 4 - Scientific impact (How the objectives and expected results contribute to advancing the state of the art; relevance of the project to the European and/or international planetary scientific community and/or past or future missions and/or industry and other research disciplines).

Each criterion will be rated on a 0 to 5 scale with an equal weight (total score on 20). The table below provides a guideline illustrating the value and meaning of individual marks.
Scientists from ‘Inclusiveness Member States’ are particularly encouraged to apply for funding and will be given preference for funding if all other evaluation criteria are equal.

Numeric score Corresponding wording Definition
Excellent The application successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
Very good The application addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible. 
Good The application addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary.
Fair While the application broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses.
Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.
0 - The application fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information.

Threshold will apply for each of the criteria (3/5) and for the overall score (13/20): only proposals meeting these requirements will be considered for selection.