Grant Agreement N.246711 - Supported by European Commission DG-INFSO

PERSONAL DETAILS

1. First Name:   
   
   
   
2. Last Name:   
   
   
   
3. E-mail:   
   
   (mandatory fields)

    

   
   
4. Organization:   
   
   
   
5. Scientific/Technological field:
   Chemistry
   Social Sciences
   Earth Sciences & Environment
   Engineering & Technology
   Humanities
   Life Sciences & Biotech
   Mathematics
   Physics
   Energy
   Information & Communication Technologies
   Material Sciences
   Other
   
   
6. Position/Role
   
   
   
7. Are you:
   head of a Research Infrastructures or a specific department (RI)
   leader of scientific/infrastructural projects
   manager for national/international research agency programs
   
   

   MANAGEMENT OF ACCESS

   
   
8. Is the RI you provide subject to a peer review procedure?
   yes   no
   
   
9. If no, please describe process by which access to your RI is allowed
   
   
   
10. If yes, what is the scope of the peer review procedure?
    International
    National
    Local
    
    
    
11. What is the entity in charge of managing the peer review procedure? (a national agency, the RI itself, ...)
    
    
    

    PANELS

    
    
12. Is there a scientific panel for the peer review process?
    yes   no
    
    
13. If yes, is it international in membership?
    yes   no
    
    
14. What is the total number of members of the Scientific Panels?
    
    
    
15. Is there a Technical Panel?
    yes   no
    
    
16. If yes, is it international in membership?
    yes   no
    
    
17. What is the total number of members of the Technical Panels?
    
    
    
18. Are there thematic panels or sub-panels?
    
    
    
19. Is there a formal charter for the panel?
    yes   no
    
    
20. What is the mechanism by which you choose the panelists/evaluators?
    
    
    

    EVALUATION PROCEDURE

    
    
21. How frequently does the Peer Review procedure take place?
    
    
    
22. Is submission continuous or according to specific calls for proposals?
    continuous   according to specific calls
    
    
23. How many proposals (approx.) are evaluated at each review?
    
    
    
24. How are the proposals assigned to the panels?
    
    
    
25. How long does the entire evaluation procedure take (from the submission to the resources assignment)?
    
    
    
26. Are guidelines for evaluation provided to the panelists?
    
    
    
27. Is there any cross-check that the proposals had never been submitted to other funding entities?
    
    
    
28. Is there a conflict of interest policy for the panel? If so, describe it:
    
    
    
29. How do you treat projects that were submitted to more than one funding entity? (e.g. reject it, require more info..)
    
    
    
30. Can national and international selection mechanism produce conflicts? (e.g. a project rejected on a national basis and approved at the international level). If so, explain how you manage them.
    
    
    

    DECISION FLOW

    
    
31. Are the panels organized in a hierarchical scheme?
    yes   no
    
    
32. If yes, could you give an example of the hierarchy? (e.g. the technical panel gives inputs to the thematic panels and the scientific plenary panel decides ...)
    
    
    
33. If no, could you describe in some details the decision flow?
    
    
    
34. Does your selection procedure foresee the possibility of interviewing the PI of the project?
    
    
    
35. Are there specific categories (young researchers, women, non favoured countries..) that are privileged in the selection?
    
    
    
36. Is there any mechanism for speeding up the evaluation in special cases? (e.g. "urgent" proposals ...)
    
    
    
37. Is a fraction of the infrastructure/programme resources assigned using other procedures? (please note that we are not referring to resources devoted to e.g industrial applications, those are outside the scope of our study)
    
    
    
38. Is possible to manage or adjust the allocation after the panel decision? (e.g. extension of project length or resources ...)
    
    
    
39. Do you require the publication of project outcomes? If yes, what is the policy regarding that?
    
    
    
40. Please give a mark between 5 (highest) and 1 (lowest) to the importance of the following criteria used by the reviewers in evaluating the proposals

    	5     4     3     2     1
    Scientific/Technological impact
    Publications
    Country of provenience
    Originality of the proposal
    Experience of the research group
    Previous successful/unsuccessful projects in the field
    Suitability of requested resources to project objectives
    Quality and completeness of the proposal itself
    Collaboration with the infrastructure
    Expected capability of exploiting the project results
    Others (please specify)

    
    

    LESSONS LEARNED

    
    
41. If any, what are the major shortcomings or problems in the selection processes that you experienced?
    
    
    
42. What would you advise for a successful selection process?
    
    
    
43. Could you please provide references or links to the official Calls for applications you described in the survey?
    

Data protection and privacy of personal information: The collection of personal data is conducted in accordance with Italian laws and regulations. Such data will only be used for purposes connected to the fulfilment of the contract/service. Any information provided to CINECA during the supply/service will be treated as strictly confidential and in according to the terms of law. When subscribing to the survey you automatically authorize CINECA to use all your personal data only in the frame of the HPCWorld project, (according to the D.lgs. 196/2003 of 30/06/2003 about "Personal data protection").