ERC Newsletter June 2013 Peer-Review

Issue #2
Peer review Continuing the chain of excellence

Applying for an ERC grant is generally seen as a stimulating, yet intellectually challenging process. To be part of the small crowd that gets this coveted funding, candidates have to pass the highly competitive selection process based on international peer review. The ERC Scientific Council regards peer review as the optimal way to find and fund the best, as alluded to in the editorial of this issue. There is a crucial chain of excellence in which the best select the best. This chain has been growing over the past six years, so it is high time to provide some insights into this core element to the ERCs success. The ERCs governing body - the Scientific Council plays an essential role when it comes to the peer review evaluation. Whilst not involved in the actual selection of candidates, its 22 members guarantee the quality both in terms of peer reviewers and guiding principles throughout the evaluation. The ERC peer review structure consists of 25 panels (see panel list p. 5), grouped under the three ERC domains. Each domain has a Scientific Council member as domain coordinator; ERC President Helga Nowotny is in charge of the Social Sciences and Humanities, Vice President Pavel Exner manages the Physical and Engineering Sciences, and ERC Vice President CarlHendrik Heldin oversees the Life Sciences. The domain coordinators first assess which fields are in need of new peer review experts, and then ask their Scientific Council colleagues to help recruiting them. According to Dr Jose Labastida, head of the ERC Scientific Department, this is one of the key characteristics of the ERC. The ERC believes that the best scientists are able to identify excellence, and therefore continue the chain of excellence; the distinguished Scientific Council members choose the best scientific reviewers, who in turn select the best scientists able to develop excellent ideas. The ERC peer reviewers come from around the globe, making it one of the most international peer review systems on this scale worldwide; around 11 per cent of panel members are based outside Europe (see graph p. 4). This international aspect is relevant when it comes to the impartiality of the selection. Each ERC panel consists of a chairperson and 12 to 14 panel members who meet in Brussels, and is complimented by remote referees with specific expertise. The overall organisation of the panels is coordinated by the ERCs Scientific Officers. Finding the Best Panels are focussed on finding the best research when they evaluate the submitted proposals in the ERCs two-step process. The candidates are initially being assessed on a short version of their proposal together with their CV and their ability to deliver their science, says Prof. Jane Apperley, ERC Panel Chair within the Life Sciences domain and Chair of the Department of Haematology at Imperial College London. Before their first meeting, panel chairs and panel members familiarise themselves with all proposals in their panel. Then, each proposal is reviewed more thoroughly by three panel members or more. Prof. Apperley clarifies that all proposals are discussed, even those with complete agreement on their quality, to make sure that each proposal has been appropriately reviewed and treated fairly. Approximately 25 to 30 per cent of all submitted proposals go to step two. Candidates for the Starting and Consolidator grants will have to come to Brussels to present and justify their proposals to the panels. As Dr Labastida points out: The interview is a unique feature of the ERC. Its also crucial, as it is the place were excellence is detected among early-career researchers. ERC Starting Grantee Dr Debra Laefer is one of the applicants who successfully went through
ideas 2013 #2 (June)
www.shutterstock.com
European Research Council Newsletter
the interview: I was very impressed with the quality of the reviewers. They asked extremely relevant and highly thoughtful questions. It was, however, a nerve-racking process. In my entire life I havent done anything as stressful as this. It was very challenging to convey in such a short time my strengths and the technical aspects of the project. Dr Laefer, based at the University College Dublin, has peer review experience both as an applicant and a reviewer in different organisations. As an American with an international research path, she has also gone through peer review outside Europe. The panels of the American National Science Foundation, NSF, are much more domain specific, which generally means that they include more expertise. But, in the case of the ERC there are remote referees to fill this role. They asked thoughtprovoking questions. So both systems work. Dr Jose Labastida confirms that the ERC panels indeed have a broad definition of areas and adds that this was a deliberate choice, so that interdisciplinary proposals are properly evaluated. In the second step of the evaluation, the broad overview of the panels is complimented by remote referees with specific expertise. These remote referees are selected by the panel members and are requested to assess proposals during step two. Also Prof. Jane Apperley sees the positive aspects of this model and elaborates on his point: Although the panel members are not all experts in identical fields, their experience and skills allow them to assess rapidly the quality of the applicant and the project. To the experienced
ERC international panel members

other NON-ERA US 7% AC 8% 4%
EU27 81%
ERC panel members - country of institutional affiliation All funding schemes 2012 & 2013 (In total 1901 panel members) AC: Associated Countries
reviewer good science and true ability is easily recognised. To obtain more subject specific reviews, which enable an assessment of the applicant in the wider context of their topic, the ERC uses subject specific external reviewers, whose opinion is invaluable to the panel members. She adds that: My experience is that the panel members take their role very seriously, they go to great length to seek expert advice before preparing their report.. Regarding the selection process, ERC Starting grantees Dr Debra Laefer and Dr Jan Tk (the latter interviewed for this issues Researcher in the Spotlight) stress the importance of perseverance. Both researchers did not get the grant at their first attempt. The feedback from my first application helped me to improve the quality of the second proposal considerably, says Dr Tk.
www.shutterstock.com
Issue #2
Funding the Best All grant applicants are individually evaluated in two review areas. First, the potential of the applicant and the quality of his or her research record are evaluated. Secondly, the evaluators assess the ground-breaking nature of the proposal and its potential impact. They are especially looking for exciting, new ideas. Panel chair Prof. Apperley says: Without wishing to state the obvious, an excellent proposal will tick both boxes. A very good candidate is likely to write a very good proposal. If any of the two aspects is not satisfactory it casts doubt on the project as a whole. The proportion of projects that can be funded is obviously limited and excellence in both areas is necessary for success. So, excellence is the sole evaluation criterion. There are no quotas; geographical or other aspects do not play a role. And, there are no preferred research topics; this bottom-up approach has also become an ERC trademark. At the end of steps one and two, the evaluation panel defines a ranked list of all proposals in the panel at that step. The overall success rate is, depending on the grant scheme, between 10 and 12 per cent. The proposals finally fall within one of the following three categories: The main list: the top ranked proposals that fit within the budget; The reserve list: these proposals are next in ranking order. Some of the reserve proposals are funded, but not all, due to budgetary reasons; The proposals that failed to meet the ERC quality threshold.
It is interesting to note that more than a dozen countries have launched initiatives to fund ERC reserve list candidates who passed the strict quality threshold, but whose proposals were left unfunded due to the ERCs budgetary constraints. These countries do this without further peer review at the national level, which can be seen as a strong vote of confidence for the ERC peer review process. ERC Panels LIFE SCIENCES LS1 Molecular and Structural Biology and Biochemistry LS2 Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics and Systems Biology LS3 Cellular and Developmental Biology LS4 Physiology, Pathophysiology and Endocrinology LS5 Neurosciences and Neural Disorders LS6 Immunity and Infection LS7 Diagnostic Tools, Therapies and Public Health LS8 Evolutionary, Population and Environmental Biology LS9 Applied Life Sciences and Non-Medical Biotechnology PHYSICAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PE1 Mathematics PE2 Fundamental Constituents of Matter PE3 Condensed Matter Physics PE4 Physical and Analytical Chemical Sciences PE5 Synthetic Chemistry and Materials PE6 Computer Science and Informatics PE7 Systems and Communication Engineering PE8 Products and Processes Engineering PE9 Universe Sciences PE10 Earth System Science SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES SH1 Individuals, Institutions and Markets SH2 Institutions, Values, Beliefs and Behaviour SH3 Environment, Space and Populations SH4 The Human Mind and Its Complexity SH5 Cultures and Cultural Production SH6 The Study of the Human Past

ERC Newsletter June 2013 Peer-Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ERC Newsletter June 2013 Peer-Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ERC Newsletter June 2013 Peer-Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Issue #2

Peer review Continuing the chain of excellence

ideas 2013 #2 (June)

European Research Council Newsletter

ERC international panel members

ideas 2013 #2 (June)

ideas 2013 #2 (June)

You might also like