Difference between revisions of "Guidelines"
From mn.ifi.proposalfailures
(Created page with "===blabla=== ''blabla'' blabla ==Excellence (the research idea itself, methods, ..)== === '''Unclear, not enough detail, not ground-breaking enough:''' === **The proposal al...") (Tag: Visual edit) |
(→Clarity, being ground-breaking, ..:) (Tag: Visual edit) |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | '''These guidelines are derived as ''subjective'' interpretations of the reviewer statements on [[Main Page|this page]].''' | |
| − | '' | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==Excellence (the research idea itself, methods, ..)== | ==Excellence (the research idea itself, methods, ..)== | ||
| − | === ''' | + | === '''Clarity, being ground-breaking, ..:''' === |
| − | * | + | *Project outputs: be specific about analytic evaluations. |
| − | * | + | *Describe concrete project results (e.g., simulation model, prototype etc.) in sufficient detail. Benefits shown as a vision are not concrete enough. |
| − | * | + | *Be clear about goals. E.g., when describing a % improvement over the state of the art, clarify which metrics will be used to quantify the improvement. |
| − | * | + | *Be ambitious. E.g., 20% better than the SoA is not enough. Explain the ground-breaking nature of the research and its generalisability. |
| − | * | + | *Avoid looking incremental - careful with showing initial results. |
| − | + | *Be clear about the research plan: how will the research questions be tackled? | |
| − | * | + | *Avoid looking too narrow: there should be a reasonably large research community interested in your work. |
| − | * | + | *Avoid looking too broad: research objectives should not seem like they could each be a project in its own right. |
| − | * | + | *Avoid redundancy in the text - e.g., don't embed the research questions in the objectives. |
| − | ** | + | *Think twice about which field to address (try to aim for new fields, if possible). |
| + | *Make sure to motivate and explain all choices well. | ||
| − | === ''' | + | === '''Methods:''' === |
| − | * | + | *If the focus is on experiments, 1) provide sufficient details on experimental evaluation, and 2) consider adding complementary analytic methods to also attain more theory-oriented scientific achievements. |
| − | * | + | *Make sure that quantitative research methods are described for all the research activities related to the topics mentioned. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
=== '''Related work:''' === | === '''Related work:''' === | ||
| − | * | + | *Provide a comparison with alternative approaches; clarify how the project will differentiate from them. Highlight originality. |
| − | + | ||
| − | * | + | === '''Other matters:''' === |
| + | * Explicitly address ethics, safety and gender issues. | ||
| + | |||
==Implementation (management)== | ==Implementation (management)== | ||
=== '''PhD student supervision:''' === | === '''PhD student supervision:''' === | ||
| − | * | + | *State who will advise the Ph.D. students. |
| − | + | *Give enough details regarding the supervision of PhD students, especially when the project manager's own research has previously had a different focus. | |
=== '''International cooperation:''' === | === '''International cooperation:''' === | ||
| − | * | + | *When cooperating with international partners, explain how the international consortium will be managed. |
| − | ** | + | *When cooperating with industry, engage with other stakeholders from the same industry beyond only one major company. |
| − | * | + | *Clarify how collaboration will work in the project (a plan of exchange visits, and stating the intention to submit joint publications is not enough). |
| + | *If external collaborators primarily have the expertise on a topic, this is a risk for the project. Avoid this, or state it as a risk and provide a mitigation plan. | ||
=== '''Other management issues:''' === | === '''Other management issues:''' === | ||
| − | * | + | *Consider including (a) work package(s) for integration, result evaluation, project management and dissemination. |
| − | + | *Describe the management structure in sufficient detail. | |
| − | * | + | *Describe task dependencies, timing and deliverables. |
| − | ** | + | *Clarify the division of research tasks and responsibilities between team members. |
| − | ** | + | *Describe WP results not only in terms of of publications but in terms of concrete achievements and developments. |
| − | * | + | *Avoid looking too generic with the risk management plan (still, include general risks like failing to recruit the right staff, and delay in hiring people); mitigation actions must be detailed and clear. |
| + | *A "waterfall arrangement" work package structure may look too simple. Clarify the timeline and dependencies. | ||
| + | *Search the proposal for "he", "his" and "him" before submitting to say she/he instead, wherever appropriate. | ||
| + | |||
==Impact (dissemination, exploitation, ..)== | ==Impact (dissemination, exploitation, ..)== | ||
| − | * | + | *If dissemination activities only describe publications in journals and international conferences, consider adding something more. Maybe what the EC calls "communication", i.e. talking to the public, via other media? |
| − | * | + | *In addition to the technological impact, describe the impact on / importance for society at large and/or industry. |
| − | * | + | *To convince reviewers that there will be a significant impact on the research community, avoid too many self-cites in the reference list. |
| − | * | + | *Provide KPIs for dissemination activities. Plan for enough papers! |
| − | * | + | *When working across multiple fields, ensure that the publication plans evenly spreads across all of them. |
| − | * | + | *Address the potential exploitation of the research results. |
| − | + | *In case of doing standardisation, provide information about contacts to standardisation channels, and explain in detail how an impact in standardisation will be achieved. | |
| − | * | + | *Explicitly address ethics, safety and gender issues. |
| − | * | + | *Explicitly address societal impact. |
| + | *Avoid making the impact description too generic looking. It must be specific to the project. | ||
| + | *Avoid road-blocks like requiring a systemic change across different parts of the value chain before the proposed system can become effective. | ||
Latest revision as of 13:56, 30 June 2021
These guidelines are derived as subjective interpretations of the reviewer statements on this page.
Contents
Excellence (the research idea itself, methods, ..)
Clarity, being ground-breaking, ..:
- Project outputs: be specific about analytic evaluations.
- Describe concrete project results (e.g., simulation model, prototype etc.) in sufficient detail. Benefits shown as a vision are not concrete enough.
- Be clear about goals. E.g., when describing a % improvement over the state of the art, clarify which metrics will be used to quantify the improvement.
- Be ambitious. E.g., 20% better than the SoA is not enough. Explain the ground-breaking nature of the research and its generalisability.
- Avoid looking incremental - careful with showing initial results.
- Be clear about the research plan: how will the research questions be tackled?
- Avoid looking too narrow: there should be a reasonably large research community interested in your work.
- Avoid looking too broad: research objectives should not seem like they could each be a project in its own right.
- Avoid redundancy in the text - e.g., don't embed the research questions in the objectives.
- Think twice about which field to address (try to aim for new fields, if possible).
- Make sure to motivate and explain all choices well.
Methods:
- If the focus is on experiments, 1) provide sufficient details on experimental evaluation, and 2) consider adding complementary analytic methods to also attain more theory-oriented scientific achievements.
- Make sure that quantitative research methods are described for all the research activities related to the topics mentioned.
Related work:
- Provide a comparison with alternative approaches; clarify how the project will differentiate from them. Highlight originality.
Other matters:
- Explicitly address ethics, safety and gender issues.
Implementation (management)
PhD student supervision:
- State who will advise the Ph.D. students.
- Give enough details regarding the supervision of PhD students, especially when the project manager's own research has previously had a different focus.
International cooperation:
- When cooperating with international partners, explain how the international consortium will be managed.
- When cooperating with industry, engage with other stakeholders from the same industry beyond only one major company.
- Clarify how collaboration will work in the project (a plan of exchange visits, and stating the intention to submit joint publications is not enough).
- If external collaborators primarily have the expertise on a topic, this is a risk for the project. Avoid this, or state it as a risk and provide a mitigation plan.
Other management issues:
- Consider including (a) work package(s) for integration, result evaluation, project management and dissemination.
- Describe the management structure in sufficient detail.
- Describe task dependencies, timing and deliverables.
- Clarify the division of research tasks and responsibilities between team members.
- Describe WP results not only in terms of of publications but in terms of concrete achievements and developments.
- Avoid looking too generic with the risk management plan (still, include general risks like failing to recruit the right staff, and delay in hiring people); mitigation actions must be detailed and clear.
- A "waterfall arrangement" work package structure may look too simple. Clarify the timeline and dependencies.
- Search the proposal for "he", "his" and "him" before submitting to say she/he instead, wherever appropriate.
Impact (dissemination, exploitation, ..)
- If dissemination activities only describe publications in journals and international conferences, consider adding something more. Maybe what the EC calls "communication", i.e. talking to the public, via other media?
- In addition to the technological impact, describe the impact on / importance for society at large and/or industry.
- To convince reviewers that there will be a significant impact on the research community, avoid too many self-cites in the reference list.
- Provide KPIs for dissemination activities. Plan for enough papers!
- When working across multiple fields, ensure that the publication plans evenly spreads across all of them.
- Address the potential exploitation of the research results.
- In case of doing standardisation, provide information about contacts to standardisation channels, and explain in detail how an impact in standardisation will be achieved.
- Explicitly address ethics, safety and gender issues.
- Explicitly address societal impact.
- Avoid making the impact description too generic looking. It must be specific to the project.
- Avoid road-blocks like requiring a systemic change across different parts of the value chain before the proposed system can become effective.
