SEAS evaluation criteria and weighting
Applications will be assessed against transparent criteria addressing excellence, impact, implementation, quality of the researcher and training, knowledge transfer, and networking opportunities.
Applications will be assessed against criteria (Table 1) addressing excellence, impact, implementation, quality of the researcher and training, knowledge transfer, and networking opportunities. These main criteria encompass, inter alia, the quality of the proposed research project, the potential impact of the fellowship on the career development of the researcher, the synergy between the research proposed and the identified host, the quality and motivation of the researcher, and potential integration of the proposed research and researcher within the host institution.
Incoming (IF) and Outgoing applicants (OF) will be assessed alike for the three criteria excellence, impact, implementation. OF will be assessed against an additional criterion with a view to CV building and transferring knowledge to the respective hosting environment at UiB. Correspondingly, the weighting of the criterion “Quality of the researcher” is reduced.
Each criterion will be scored out of five according to the scoring chart in Table 2. Decimal points may be given. The experts will judge each candidate’s merits quantitatively as well as qualitatively.
Table 1 Evaluation criteria and weighting for peer review
Criterion, weighting (Priority in ex aequo cases)
Excellence, 30% (1)
Quality, clarity, and credibility of proposed research
Originality/innovative nature/timeliness of the research
Appropriateness of the research approach and methodology
Consideration of inter/multi/transdisciplinary and intersectoral aspects
Consideration of gender aspects, if relevant
Impact, 20% (2)
Potential impact on the career development of the researcher
Relevance and potential impact to the research field of marine sustainability
Potential impact to wider society and policy, where relevant
Quality of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate research results
Quality of the proposed measures to communicate the research activities to different target audiences
Implementation, 20% (3)
Overall coherence, effectiveness, and appropriateness of the work plan (incl. milestones and deliverables)
Match between proposed project and host infrastructure/facilities (OF: UiB AND host of outgoing phase)
Match between proposed project and host expertise (OF: UiB AND host of outgoing phase)
Quality of the researcher, 30% IF (4), 20% OF (5)
Clear and credible motivation of the researcher for joining the programme and the research group(s)
Scientific track record in relation to career stage (publications, awards, patents, and other results)
Non-scientific track record and impacts - e.g., teaching, mentoring, public engagement & outreach, articles
Independence, leadership qualities, creativity, and collaborative skills
Match between track record and proposed research of the researcher
Integration, 10%, OF only (OF: 4)
Two-way transfer of knowledge and skills to the researcher and to UiB/host institution
Networking opportunities for the researcher through outgoing phase
Table 2. Scoring chart with interpretation of the scores to be used by the reviewers during the evaluation
|5||Excellent||Proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion. Any shortcomings are minor.|
|4||Very good||Proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of shortcomings are present.|
|3||Good||Proposal addresses the criterion well, but several shortcomings are present.|
|2||Fair||Proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses.|
|1||Poor||The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.|
|0||Invalid||Proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information.|
Expert evaluators will be instructed to look at the career as a whole and to consider non-academic work, career breaks (e.g., parental and long-term sick leave, compulsory military service, time spent for obtaining refugee status) and variations in chronological order as a potentially valuable contribution to the applicant’s profile rather than a penalty.