LEAD AI Evaluation criteria
Applications to all LEAD AI fellowships will be assessed against the criteria described below.
Hovedinnhold
Applications will be assessed against criteria addressing quality of the researcher, excellence, impact, and for outgoing fellows - integration. 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.
Applications for Incoming (IF) and Outgoing Fellowships (OF) will be assessed alike for the three criteria excellence, impact, and 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 slightly reduced. Each criterion will be scored according to the scoring chart in the table blow. Decimal points (1) may be given. The experts will judge each candidate’s merits quantitatively as well as qualitatively.
Evaluation criteria and weighting for peer review
| Criterion, weighting | Priority in ex aequo cases |
| Quality of the researcher, 50% IF, 40% OF | 1 |
Scientific track record in relation to career stage (publications, awards, patents, and other results)* Match between track record and proposed research of the researcher | |
| Excellence, 30% | 2 |
Quality, clarity, and credibility of proposed research Originality/innovative nature/timeliness of the research Appropriateness of the research approach and methodology Consideration of gender and diversity aspects, if relevant Consideration of inter/multi/transdisciplinary and intersectoral aspects, if applicable | |
| Impact, 10% | 3 |
Scientific impact of the proposed research Potential impact on the career development of the researcher 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, 10% | 4 |
Overall coherence, effectiveness, and appropriateness of the work plan (incl. milestones and deliverables) Match between proposed project and host expertise and infrastructure/facilities (OF: UiB AND host of outgoing phase) | |
| Integration, 10%, OF only | 5 |
Two-way transfer of knowledge and skills to the researcher and to UiB/host institution Networking opportunities for the researcher through outgoing phase |
*UiB has recently signed the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment and will be working towards its implementation in the coming years.
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. |