Maximise the chances of success of your health research Horizon Europe project: understanding the award criteria

Maximise the chances of success of your health research Horizon Europe project: understanding the award criteria

Last weeks before the deadline of the call for proposals: time to start reviewing your research proposal carefully and critically, to ensure that everything is in place before pressing the Submit button.

But where to start?

There are so many resources and indications out there on how to ensure that your proposal is successful and receive funding.

The answer is simple: focus on addressing the weaknesses that are most relevant to the specific grant proposal and that are most likely to impact the chances of receiving funding.

The award criteria will therefore come to the rescue.

In this blog post, I will discuss the three evaluation criteria used by the experts to evaluate Horizon Europe proposals, how they are weighted in the process and how to exploit them to maximise your chances of success.

Types of evaluation criteria

Although every research funding programme has different guidelines and specificities, for research grants you will generally find three evaluation criteria: scientific merit, potential impact, and feasibility and implementation.

In the Horizon Europe programme, they are named Excellence, Impact and Implementation, respectively.

Luckily, the application template reflects this structure and therefore includes three different sections, that are titled in the same way. So, it should not be difficult to pair the template section with the corresponding evaluation criterion for that section.

In details, for a collaborative research and innovation project (”RIA” in the Horizon Europe vocabulary), the award criteria are as follows:

- Excellence
This criterion refers to the quality of the research design and methodology and it considers:

  • Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives, and the extent to which the proposed work is ambitious and goes beyond the state of the art.
  • Soundness of the proposed methodology, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions, inter-disciplinary approaches, appropriate consideration of the gender dimension in research and innovation content, and the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end-users where appropriate

- Impact
The Impact criterion evaluates how the proposed research can contribute to solving a specific problem or advancing knowledge in a particular field. It considers:

  • Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme, and the likely scale and significance of the contributions from the project.
  • Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities.

- Implementation
The Implementation criterion assesses whether the proposed research can be realistically carried out within the available resources and time frame. The criterion considers:

  • Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources overall.
  • Capacity and role of each participant, and extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise.


Importance of weighting criteria appropriately

Knowing the criteria is not enough? Well, the answer to this question is no, of course.
Why shall you care about the way the award criteria are weighted in the process?

This piece of information have an impact on the way in which you are writing your grants, as it tells you exactly how to allocate your time and effort on the proposal writing.
A well-balanced investment of time and effort across all sections of the proposal can lead to a more comprehensive and competitive application.
In the evaluation process, experts evaluators assign a score ranging from 0 to 5 to each evaluation criterion.
It is important to note that, in order for the proposal to be eligible for funding, a minimum threshold of 3 is expected for each individual criterion.

However, the overall minimum threshold for the project, which takes into consideration the sum of the three individual scores, is 10 (and not 9, meaning that scoring 3 for each criterion is not sufficient!).

According to my experience, researchers tend to spend most of their time in writing the Excellence and Implementation section, while they are not usually prioritizing the writing of the Impact section. This leads to an unbalanced time investment that can penalise them in the evaluation process.

Instead, a well-balanced investment of time and effort across all sections of the proposal can lead to a more comprehensive and competitive application.

Examples of comments by the evaluators

I am referring here to some weakenesses taken from the evaluation reports of some of my previous projects, just to provide you with some concrete examples on the comments that you may receive:

  • “Some of the objectives are missing measurable targets to enable benchmarking of the project results”
  • “Although the listed objectives are specific, the proposal does not clearly formulate and explain how they are to be achieved and measured and verified during and after the implementation of the project”
  • “How do the proposers can guarantee that the stakeholders will actually be involved? Although this risk is predicted, contingency plan proposed to overcome those possibilities is not sufficiently robust”
  • “No reference to the methodological background and standards”
  • “The proposal lacks a proper description and justification of the important impact categories that would allow to better estimate its real contribution at European and/or international level”
  • “Quantitative estimation of the contribution of the project output to the expected outcomes are not given”
  • “Details on the integration of knowledge from other sectors (e.g. social science) is weak”
  • “The allocation of person months for the project is overestimated”
  • “More public deliverables are needed”
  • “The workplan is overloaded”

Feel free to use this list to evaluate your proposal and to check if any of these comments may also apply to your project.

Best practices and suggestions

To increase their chances of success in securing Horizon Europe funding, researchers should carefully consider and address each of these evaluation criteria in their proposal, providing clear and well-justified research plans that demonstrate the scientific quality, potential impact, and feasibility of their proposed research, as well as the qualifications and expertise of their research team.

But how to do that?

1) Be aware of the evaluation criteria for a research grant prior to writing the application
Start your grant writing process by analyzing the evaluation criteria in detail and then use this analysis to plan and structure your proposal. This will help you to ensure that you are providing all necessary information and that your application is structured in a way that demonstrates your ability to meet these criteria.

2) Periodically check that all the award criteria have been addressed in the document

After helping researchers write their grants for 20 years, I know how it works. In the proposal text, there is still that paragraph title that is supposed to act as a placeholder for one of the award criteria requests. But that paragraph is ignored for a long time, as you don't know what to write, you haven't understood what kind of information to provide, none of the partners has given you any suggestions, and suddenly...puff! in the last week, that title magically disappears from the document. You know what I am referring to, don’t lie! Out of sight, out of mind. Uhm, definitively not a good idea!

3) Use the award criteria as a guideline to critically review your project

Remeber that applications are evaluated as they were submitted, not on their potential if certain changes were made. Therefore, you need to be sure that all elements that are needed to evaluate each criterion is inside the proposal and clear enough to be understood and appreciated by the evaluators.

Use the standard evaluation template, take a step back from your project and try to read it objectively. Have you provided all the necessary information?

Use the examples above as guiding questions for your project’s review.

4) Ask a colleague to read your project

A pair of fresh eyes may be really beneficial in spotting missing information, weaknesses or inconsistencies throughout the proposal, identify passages that are not clear enough or that might be misinterpreted. Select someone who has not been involved in the proposal preparation, but who has a relevant background and expertise, to be able to read and understand the proposal concept and methodology. Don’t be afraid to ask and promise that you will offer the same help for their next grant.

Takeaway

Knowing and understanding the evaluation criteria from the beginning can guide the writing process in terms of content and planned effort. By understanding what is expected from your side, you can reverse-engineer your grant proposal to meet all the evaluation criteria. By doing so, you can ensure that you are providing all of the necessary information and that your application is structured in a way that demonstrates your ability to meet these criteria. This approach can help you maximize your chances of success and increase the likelihood of receiving funding for your research project.