The evaluation process
The evaluation process can be seen in the chart below:
 |
| The evaluation process |
- Project proposals are first evaluated by at least three independent external experts of the scientific and technological fields concerned, who comply with the rules on conflict of interest. They award scores and provide written evaluation, and also define the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals, pursuant to the criteria set forth by the Guide. This phase takes approximately 1 month.
- In the next phase, an evaluation committee comprising 8-10 independent experts ranks project proposals by their comparative evaluation based on the evaluations in the first phase. The members of the three evaluation committees shall be renowned experts of the fields of life sciences, technical sciences, natural and social sciences. International experts shall also participate in the work of committees. Evaluation committees gather and compile the ranking list within 1 month following the first cycle of evaluation is closed.
- In the third and final phase of evaluation, one Joint Evaluation Committee shall meet, comprising the chairpersons of committees in the previous round and renowned experts appointed by the presidents of NKTH and OTKA Commission. The task of the Joint Evaluation Committee is to make a unified ranking of all proposals based on the ranking lists of evaluation committees and make a proposal for decision for the president of NKTH. Based on the proposal of the joint committee and on the proposal of the president of the OTKA Commission, the president of NKTH shall make funding decisions.
The evaluation process takes at least 3 months. Applicants receive a notice on the result, as well as the expert opinions within 10 days the decision is passed. Successful proposers receive an offer to conclude a contract at the same time.
Contracting is expected to take place within the quarter following the decision. Recommended start date of projects shall be within six months following funding decision.
Evaluation Criteria
During evaluation - under all three thematic priorities - one project may receive a maximum of 20 points.
In all three priorities (outgoing mobility, incoming mobility and reintegration), the following 6 evaluation criteria shall be applied.
| SELECTION CRITERIA FOR PROJECT PROPOSALS |
Maximum score
|
Weighing
|
Weighed score
|
|
| Compliance with the objectives of the call | Correspondence of the proposal to the objectives of the call |
Yes/no
|
||
| Scientific and technological quality of the proposal | Scientific, technological quality and novelty of the project proposal as well as its correspondence to cutting-edge international research, its methodology, topicality and relevance |
5
|
1,2
|
6
|
| Assessment of applicant researcher | Competence, earlier professional activities, research results, project management experience of the applicant researcher, his/her competence with regards to project implementation and his/her participation in international mobility programmes |
5
|
1,2
|
6
|
| Assessment of the host institution | Facilities, equipment, professional excellence and international relationships of the host institution, its experience in the training, hosting and mentoring experienced researchers |
5
|
0,4
|
2
|
| Project management | Project work stream planning, project feasibility and detailed elaboration of activity periods Actuality of the financial plan of the project |
5
|
0,4
|
2
|
| Impact | The long-term impact of the project on the applicant researcher’s career The contribution of the project to the restart of the researcher’s career (if relevant) Expected exploitation of project results |
5
|
0,4
|
2
|
| Total: |
18
|
|||
Beyond the above described general criteria, further criteria for the different priorities are also used, thus a project proposal may receive a maximum weighed score of 20.
| A. Outgoing mobility | Maximum score | Weighing | Weighed score | |
| Training | Quality of training through the research project (e.g. quality of tutoring, methodology training, etc.) Other additional training provided by the host institution (e.g. IPR knowledge, presentation skills development, project management know-how, etc.) |
5 | 0,4 | 2 |
| B. Incoming mobility | Maximum score | Weighing | Weighed score | |
| Training | Quality of training through the research project (e.g. quality of tutoring, methodology training, etc.) Other additional training provided by the host institution (e.g. IPR knowledge, presentation skills development, project management know-how, etc.) |
5 | 0,4 | 2 |
| Impact | Expected impact of the project on the international relations of the Hungarian host institution and the development of its research potential. | (further possible criteria) | ||
| C. Reintegration | Maximum score | Weighing | Weighed score | |
| Assessment of the research team | Size, composition and professional level of the research team to be set up during the project (involvement of PhD students and postdocs shall be considered an advantage) | 5 | 0,4 | 2 |
| Impact | Expected exploitation of project results in Hungary, Expected impact of the project on the international relations of the Hungarian host institution and the development of its research potential. |
(further possible criteria) | ||
The maximum score awardable for each evaluation criterion is 5, this score is multiplied by the weighing value, and thus the weighed score is calculated. Each proposal may get a maximum of 20 points as weighed score during evaluation. The precondition for funding is that a given project receives at least 70% of the total weighed score (14 points) against the evaluation criteria, and, at the same time, receives 50% of the weighed score of the given criterion for each criterion.
