Feedback to applicants

Official communications and feedback from the ERCEA to the PI and the host institution (applicant legal entity) will be done via the ECAS secured web-mail account accessible via the Participant Portal. If they have not yet registered an ECAS account, the PI or the applicant legal entity’s contact person will receive an activation e-mail (at the address ‘E-mail 1’ provided in Step 4 of the proposal submission) inviting them to activate their ECAS account. Following to this first activation the ECAS account will be maintained for following communications or feedback.

PI's and applicant legal entity’s contact person will receive an activation e-mail (at the address ‘E-mail 1’ provided in Step 4 of the proposal submission) inviting them to activate an ECAS account, if not already registered. Following to this first activation the ECAS account will be maintained for following communications or feedback.

PIs and applicant legal entities are provided with feedback on the outcome of the peer review evaluation in the form of an evaluation report. This indicates whether the proposal meets the quality threshold and is retained, and provides the score and corresponding comments given by the panel as well as the comments given by the individual reviewers.

Please note that the comments by the individual reviewers may not necessarily be convergent – controversy and differences in opinion about the merits of a proposal are part of the ‘scientific method’ and are legitimate.

Furthermore, the ERC panel may take a position that is different from what could be inferred from the comments of the individual reviewers. This is the case for example, if the panel discussion reveals an important weakness in a proposal that had not been identified by the individual reviewers. The panel comments reflect the consensus decision taken by the panel as a whole based on prior remote individual assessments from independent reviewers, which can be non-paid experts as well as panel members, and on a thorough discussion and on the ranking against other proposals during the panel meeting.

1.2.5.1 Evaluation review procedure

Please see the section 3.9 of the ERC Rules for Submission for a detailed description of the assistance, inquiries and evaluation review procedures.

Upon reception of the feedback on the outcome of the peer review evaluation with the evaluation report or with the results of the eligibility check, the PI and/or the PI’s host institution (applicant legal entity) may wish to introduce a complaint against the ineligibility or a request for evaluation review, if there is an indication that there has been a shortcoming in the way a proposal has been evaluated, or that the results of the eligibility checks are incorrect. The evaluation review procedure is not meant to call into question the scientific judgement made by the peer review panel; it will look procedural shortcomings and – in rare cases – into factual errors.

Such complaints should be raised within 30 days of the date of the feedback on the outcome of eligibility checks or the peer review evaluation sent by the ERCEA, and should follow the instructions provided in the Feedback to applicants.

Complaints must be:

 related to the peer review evaluation process, or eligibility checks, for the call and grants in question;

 set out using the on-line form via the above-mentioned web-based mailing system, including a clear description of the grounds for complaint;

 received within the time limit specified on the Call information letter;

 sent by the PI and/or the PI’s host institution (as the applicant legal entity).

A holding reply will be sent to complainants no later than two weeks after the deadline for submitting the complaint. This holding reply will indicate when a final reply will be provided.

A redress committee of the ERCEA may be convened to examine the eligibility checks and peer review evaluation process for the case in question. The redress committee will bring together staff of the ERCEA with the requisite scientific/technical and legal expertise. The committee’s role is to ensure a coherent interpretation of requests, and fair and equal treatment of applicants. The evaluation review committee itself, however, does not re-evaluate the proposal. Depending on the

nature of the complaint, the committee may review the evaluation report, the individual comments and examine the CVs of the experts. In the light of its review, the committee will recommend a course of action to the ERCEA. If there is clear evidence of a shortcoming that could affect the eventual funding decision, it is possible that all or part of the proposal will be re-evaluated. Unless there is clear evidence of a shortcoming there will be no follow-up or re-evaluation.

Please note:

 A re-evaluation will only be carried out if there is evidence of a shortcoming that affects the quality assessment of a proposal. This means, for example, that a problem relating to one evaluation criterion will not lead to a re-evaluation if a proposal has failed anyway on the other criteria.

 The evaluation score following any re-evaluation will be regarded as definitive. It may be lower than the original score.

 Only one request for evaluation review per proposal will be considered by the committee.