Overall Assessment - STFC specific
In order to ensure that your review is as useful as possible please:
Familiarise yourself with the assessment criteria and the scoring guidance before you begin
Assess the application fairly
Provide clear comments and recommendations against the criteria
Give justification for markings
Be consistent between box markings and comments
Provide comprehensive information without being over-long
Provide constructive criticism
Clearly identify strengths and weaknesses
Raise concerns in the form of questions for the applicant
Use the wording early career rather than young when referring to an applicant
Disruption from COVID should not impact your assessment
Reviewers are reminded that the information provided against these questions (in this specific section) is confidential and in most cases will not be provided in the feedback given to the applicant to respond to. They will be seen by the panel only but it should be taken into consideration that on some occasions the applicant may be a member of the panel (membership lists can be found here.(see separate guidance below for Fellowships). To note, only reviewers for the Particle and Nuclear Physics Consolidated grants are invited to provide information in the text box for this section. It is not used for Astronomy Consolidated Grants or PPRP.
For IPS, CLASP, KEC Fellowships and Follow on Fund reviews, the whole section is shared with the applicant.
For Particle Physics and Nuclear Physics consolidated grants please use this text box only when you have been asked by STFC or the Particle/Nuclear Physics Grants Panel to compare and contrast a specific area of two or more proposals. For all schemes/calls you should provide an overall grading for the proposal by ticking one of the available boxes using the following guidance (STFC assessment criteria can be found on the documents to review helptext page) For Standard and PPRP schemes this will not be shared with the applicant but will for IPS, CLASP, KEC Fellowships and Follow on Fund.
Scoring definitions for Standard and PPRP scheme grants are as follows:
Fundable – High Priority - Highly innovate proposal likely to result in seminal changes in knowledge. It is clearly a world leading proposal which is in an area of STFC's highest priority.
Fundable – The proposed research is of the highest scientific merit. It is novel and/or timely and has such potential that it will, or is likely to, make a significant contribution to the field at world level or is at the forefront within the UK and is internationally competitive. The case for support demonstrates that the proposed research is feasible, well planned and cost effective.
Unfundable – The science case is not compelling. The proposed research lacks originality and is not critical to any new understanding of the subject. It is either too removed from STFC’s strategic plan to be funded or is not scientifically competitive.
Reject – The case for support cannot be accepted for one or more of the following reasons:
The science case is technically flawed
The case for resources (e.g PDRA, other costs) has not been made
There is little or no knowledge transfer (IPS/Mini IPS/Follow on Fund grants)
Please also select one of the provided options with regards to how competitive you feel this proposal would be if being applied through funding agencies in your country.
Scoring definitions for IPS grants are as follows:
Fundable with high priority
Technically Excellent
The proposal provides sufficient technical details. The technical approach is scientifically sound and appropriate and builds on STFC-funded science. Key technical risks are identified with an outstanding plan of mitigating risks associated.
Knowledge Exchange and Commercialisation
The project has a clear and well defined mechanism for achieving its objectives in knowledge exchange and commercialisation.
High impact
The technology is disruptive potentially leading to significant societal and/or economic impact.
Added value
The proposal has strong justifications for STFC funding and demonstrates potentially high return to STFC’s investment. There is no alternative route to other financial support.
Fundable
Technically feasible
The proposal provides pertinent technical information but lacks important details. The technical approach is feasible and relevant but there are some issues or significant technical risks associated without a good mitigation plan.
Knowledge Exchange and Commercialisation
The mechanism for achieving its objectives is feasible but there is room for improvement.
Medium impact
The proposal demonstrates some societal and/or economic impact derived from the outputs but on a smaller scale or an incremental basis.
Added value
The proposal has some justification for STFC funding with medium return of STFC’s investment.
Unfundable
Flawed science and business plan with limited impact
The proposal has serious technical deficiencies and the business plan has serious flaws. There is alternative route to other financial support.
Reject – The case for support cannot be accepted for one or more of the following reasons:
The science case is technically flawed
The case for resources (e.g PDRA, other costs) has not been made
There is little or no knowledge transfer (IPS/Mini IPS/Follow on Fund grants)
Please also select one of the provided options with regards to how competitive you feel this proposal would be if being applied through funding agencies in your country.
Scoring for Follow-on Fund grants is as follows:
Fundable with high priority
Technically Excellent
The proposal provides sufficient technical details. The technical approach is scientifically sound and appropriate and builds on STFC-funded science. Key technical risks are identified with an outstanding plan of mitigating the risks associated.
High commercial potential
The technology is disruptive with significant societal and/or economic impact. The proposal makes a strong and clear case of market needs, IPR position and commercialisation strategy as well as the amount of input from potential partners, licensees or investors.
Outstanding development plan
The plan for technical and commercial development is clear and appropriate with strong evidence of how the project will be managed.
Added value
The proposal has strong justifications for STFC funding and demonstrates potentially high return to STFC’s investment. There is no alternative route to other financial support.
Fundable
Technically feasible
The proposal provides pertinent technical information but lacks important details. The technical approach is feasible and relevant but there are some issues or significant technical risks associated without a good mitigation plan.
Feasible development plan
The plan for technical and commercial development is feasible with some evidence of how the project will be managed.
Medium commercial potential
The proposal has demonstrates there will be some societal and/or economic benefits derived from the outputs but on a smaller scale or incremental basis.
Added value
The proposal has some justification for STFC funding with medium return of STFC’s investment.
Unfundable
Flawed science and business plan with limited impact
The proposal has serious technical deficiencies and the business plan has serious flaws. There is alternative route to other financial support.
Reject – The case for support cannot be accepted for one or more of the following reasons:
The science case is technically flawed
The case for resources (e.g PDRA, other costs) has not been made
There is little or no knowledge transfer (IPS/Mini IPS/Follow on Fund grants)
Please also select one of the provided options with regards to how competitive you feel this proposal would be if being applied through funding agencies in your country.
Ernest Rutherford Fellowships
Please refer to the guidance notes for reviewers on the STFC website for more details https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/STFC-280921-FundingOpp-ResearchCoreScienceIndependentlyErnestRutherfordFellowship-ReviewerGuidance.pdf
Assessment criteria for Ernest Rutherford Fellowships:
Applications should be assessed against the following criteria:
the excellence of the research achievements of the applicant
the potential of the individual to lead their research discipline
the capability of the applicant to fulfil the wider responsibilities of an academic career
the quality, timeliness, feasibility, novelty and vision of the research proposal
the potential impact on STFC strategic priorities with a clearly achievable and project-specific proposal to realise both the immediate scientific and wider impact goals.
Overall Assessment Comments
Reviewers should use this box to give their opinion of the candidate in terms of their ability and suitability for a Fellowship. Please include justification for the scores given.
It is important to bear in mind how these comments will be used. The comments will be fed back anonymously to the applicant, who will then be allowed to respond to factual inaccuracies. Following this, members of the panels will be asked to use your reports as the chief tool for distinguishing between proposals.
For Leadership Fellows in Public Engagement and Nucleus Awards please make any additional comments you wish to provide in relation to this proposal that you have not made elsewhere in this form.
Webb Fellowships
Please refer to the guidance notes for more details https://www.roe.ac.uk/ukatc/jwst-fellowship/index.html
Assessment criteria for Webb Fellowships:
Applications should be assessed against the following criteria:
the quality and scope of the proposal for public engagement potential.