Evaluation & Selection Process

The evaluation and selection process will follow open, transparent and merit-based procedures to ensure that all applications are evaluated in a competent and impartial manner. Standard evaluation criteria and scoring will be used. More information about the process, evaluation criteria and scoring can be read in the sections below.

Selection Process Stages

STAGE 1

  • Applications are submitted to the project manager via the online form.
  • An acknowledgement of receipt is sent to all applicants.

STAGE 2

  • Pre-evaulation of applications by the PREPARED Research Board and Research Ethics Committee.
  • Applications are screened for eligibility and subject to ethics checks.
  • Applicants are notified of the outcome of this stage.

STAGE 3

    Evaluation of proposals by Independent Reviewers and Selection Committee.
    • Step 1: Independent Peer Review
    • Step 2: Examination of reviewers reports 
    • Step 3: Shortlisted candidates attend for interview (incl. presentation of project, PCDP and Q&A)

STAGE 4

    PREPARED Research Board and Steering Committee send a letter of offer to selected fellows. 

Evaluation Criteria

  • Reviewers and interviewers will use 3 evaluation criteria: Excellence, Impact and Implementation when assessing the proposal and interview.
  • Weighting: The evaluation criteria are weighted differently and the set of weightings shown will be applied to the scores provided for each of the criteria.
  • Priority ranking will be used to rank applications that achieve exactly the same score.
Excellence
Impact
Implementation
Weighting: 50%
Weighting: 30%
Weighting: 20%
  • Relevance of the research project to develop disability-inclusive responses to the most urgent global crises of our time.
  • Enhancing the potential and future career prospects of the applicant (in relation to being part of a multidisciplinary research platform focused on disability-inclusive responses to urgent global challenges).

  • Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan and GANTT chart; including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources.
  • Quality and credibility of the research/innovation project; novelty, inter/multidisciplinary aspects. Considerations on disability, equality, gender, and diversity.

  • Quality of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results, both in academic and non-academic settings.

  • Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures, including risk management.
  • Quality of training and knowledge transfer.
  • Quality of the proposed measures to communicate the project activities to different target audiences.

  • Appropriateness of the institutional environment, including
    complementarity of the primary and secondary academic supervisors and the non-academic secondment host.

Scoring & Thresholds

  • Eligible applications will be first scored during the International Peer Review Stage. Applications that proceed to the Interview Stage will receive a second score for that stage.
  • A score between 0 (very poor) and 5 (excellent) will be provided for each of the three evaluation criteria as a whole.
  • The corresponding weighting will be applied to the scores provided.
  • The weighted scores for each criterion will be added, producing a final weighted score. After each stage, the maximum final score for a given application will be 5 (excellent).
0The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information
1Poor. The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.
2Fair. Proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses.
3Good. Proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present.
4Very good. Proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of shortcomings are present.
5
Excellent. Proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion. Any shortcomings are minor.

Thresholds

  • An overall threshold of 70% will be applied to the weighted score produced for each proposal. Therefore, only proposals with a peer review score equal to or higher than 3.5 will proceed to the interview stage. The same threshold will apply to the interview stage.
​

Ranking and Funding Decision

  • The final mark for each application will be produced by adding the weighted scores from the international peer review and interview stages with equal weighting leading to a final mark between 0 and 10.
  • Only applications scoring above 7.0 will be considered for funding.
  • The applications will be ranked taking into account the final mark and the prospective supervisor’s capacity to take in that applicant.
  • Upon a favourable funding decision, applicants will be offered an employment contract for the duration of their fellowship from their academic supervisor’s host institution. The remaining applicants scoring above the threshold will be placed on a reserve list.
PREPARED banner image with partner and co-funder logos