As of January 2014, the EBRP is discontinued.

The program has been replaced by the Elsevier metrics development program.


For more information please visit the EMDP website.



 

Evaluation of proposals

Each proposal will be evaluated by the EBRP Scientific Board.

The Board's evaluation model

The scientific board will develop a transparent evaluation model specifying the assessment criteria taken into account and their weights. Apart from originality, methodological soundness and theoretical significance of the proposal will be taken into account.

Important criteria are; the extent to which the requested data file is appropriate for addressing the proposed study's research questions, the past performance of the applicants and the viability of the team.

Ranking of proposals

The Scientific board will rank the proposals according to overall quality as expressed in its evaluation model. Taking into account the capacity available for data set creation, the Board decides which proposals will be granted in a particular round, starting from the most highly rated proposal, and selecting subsequent proposals.

Number of proposals granted

The number of proposals granted per round has a certain upper limit. This number depends upon the complexity of the intermediary data files requested, but also at the total number of projects running at a given time, that should not exceed 20 in order to be manageable for the Program's secretariat.

Feedback on rejected proposals

Rejections will be motivated by the Board, and suggestions for improvements will be made, so that a revised proposal can be submitted in a next EBRP proposal round. A rejection will be explained by the Board per individual case. It does not necessarily mean that a proposal is of poor quality. It can be a result of poor fit to the themes covered, or there may be reasons to believe that the proposed project is not viable.

Scientific significance of the proposal

  • The contribution the proposed research potentially makes to methodological development and/or theoretical understanding or modelling
  • The soundness of the proposed methodology
  • The adequacy and thoroughness of the theoretical background
  • The originality of the proposed research

Adequacy of intermediary data file requested

  • Is the requested intermediary data file adequate for answering the research questions addressed in the proposal?

The viability of the proposed project

  • Can the various steps and milestones outlined in the proposal be carried out with the indicated research capacity within the indicated time frame?
  • Is the applicants' level of expertise in the topics studied sufficiently high?
  • Is the funding of the researchers participating in the team secured and sufficient?
  • Is the computer infrastructure appropriate for the data handling outlined in the proposal?
  • Is the publication and conference presentation plan appropriate and sufficiently challenging?

Scores attributed to each proposal range from 1-5 points (1 being the lowest score). Each proposal is evaluated based on 9 different criteria levels as follows:

  • Contribution to scientific progress (1-5)
  • Methodological Soundness (1-5)
  • Thoroughness of theoretical background (1-5)
  • Originality (1-5)
  • Adequacy requested data (1-5)
  • Viability (1-5)
  • Team's expertise (1-5)
  • Adequacy publication plan (1-5)
  • Reviewer's confidence (1-5)
  • Final decision and comments