From mn.ifi.proposalfailures
Revision as of 11:12, 7 January 2021 by (talk | contribs) (Unclear, not enough detail, not ground-breaking enough:)

Jump to: navigation, search

These guidelines are derived as subjective interpretations of the reviewer statements on this page.

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.
    • 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.


    • Define methods well, be clear.
    • 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:

    • Make sure to provide a comparison with alternative approaches; clarify how the project will differentiate from them.

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.
    • 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.
    • Clarify the division of research tasks and responsibilities between team members.
    • Avoid looking too generic with the risk management plan; mitigation actions must be detailed and clear.
    • A "waterfall arrangement" work package structure may look too simple. Clarify the timeline and dependencies.

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.
  • To convince reviewers that there will be a significant impact on the research community, provide avoid too many self-cites in the reference list.
  • Provide KPIs for dissemination activities.
  • 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.
  • Avoid making the impact description too generic looking. It must be specific to the project.