Bijlage 5 — Beoordelingsschalen juryleden Richtlijnen aanvragen financiering wetenschappelijk onderzoek (doorlopend Open Technologieprogramma (OTP))
Beoordelingsschalen juryleden
Scientific quality
1. Excellent
• An excellent researcher or outstanding research team.
• A well-chosen problem.
• The method is especially/pre-eminently effective and original.
• Very urgent.
2. Excellent to very good
3. Very good
• A competent researcher or competent research team.
• A significant problem.
• The method is original and effective.
• An urgent approach is important.
4. Very good to good
5. Good
• An average researcher or average research team.
• A routine problem.
• With the method, which has some original details, the project can be addressed, although other possibilities are conceivable.
6. Good to moderate
7. Moderate
• It is far from certain that this work is within the capacity of the researcher and / or the research team: the proposal itself contains no obvious errors.
• The problem is moderately interesting.
• Whether the project can be successfully tackled with this standard method, is questionable.
• The project may well be postponed.
8. Moderate to poor
9. Poor
• The competence of the investigator or research team is inadequate.
• The proposal contains serious errors or mistakes.
• This old method is not good for this project.
• Not to be executed, even if there is money left.
Utilisation
1. Excellent
• This will certainly lead to important new techniques or to very important applications in industry, society and other sciences.
• This research is urgently needed to make an estimate of the consequences of the use of this technology or technique.
• The utilisation is very well thought out and the approach ensures the greatest likelihood of an effective use of the results.
2. Excellent to very good
3. Very good
• This research will likely lead to important new techniques or to important applications in industry, society, or in other sciences.
• This research is highly desirable to make an estimate of the consequences of the use of this technology or technique.
• The utilisation is well thought out and the approach makes it plausible that the results of this work will be used well.
4. Very good to good
5. Good
• This work will possibly lead to new technologies or applications that might be useful for industry, society, or other sciences.
• This research will be needed to make an estimate of the impact of this technology or technique.
• The utilisation is sufficiently thought through, it can probably be improved during the execution of the work. The results of this work will probably be used.
6. Good to moderate
7. Moderate
• Technically this work could possibly be useful at some time or it is conceivable that in due course another science, industry or society or of the results could make use of it.
• The results of this research are not exactly awaited, but they may be useful in the future if an evaluation is made of the consequences of using this technology or technique.
• The utilisation is very unsatisfactory. This should certainly be improved, otherwise it is likely that the results of this work will not be used.
8. Moderate to poor
9. Poor
• Technically the work is bad and redundant, i.e. different, better or similar techniques, which are cheaper are already available.
• This study does not evaluate the consequences of using this technology or technique, moreover, it increases the confusion.
• The utilisation is completely wrong.
- Regeling
- Richtlijnen aanvragen financiering wetenschappelijk onderzoek (doorlopend Open Technologieprogramma (OTP))
- Soort
- ZBO-regeling
- Geldend vanaf
- 26-07-2017
- BWB-id
- BWBR0039841
- Versie
- 2017-07-26_0