Overall Assessment - STFC specific

In order to ensure that your review is as useful as possible please:

 

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:

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

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.

The project has a clear and well defined mechanism for achieving its objectives in knowledge exchange and commercialisation.

The technology is disruptive potentially leading to significant societal and/or economic impact.

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

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.

The mechanism for achieving its objectives is feasible but there is room for improvement.

The proposal demonstrates some societal and/or economic impact derived from the outputs but on a smaller scale or an incremental basis. 

The proposal has some justification for STFC funding with medium return of STFC’s investment.

Unfundable

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:

  

Scoring for Follow-on Fund grants is as follows:

Fundable with high priority

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.

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.

The plan for technical and commercial development is clear and appropriate with strong evidence of how the project will be managed.

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

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.

The plan for technical and commercial development is feasible with some evidence of how the project will be managed.

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.  

The proposal has some justification for STFC funding with medium return of STFC’s investment.

Unfundable

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:

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:

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.  

Please do not use this section to compare applicants against each other as your comments will be seen by the applicant.

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: