Each application will be evaluated based on the following three categories: Scientific Readiness, Computational Readiness, and Institutional Readiness. We aim to provide evaluation by two independent, anonymous reviewers with expertise in the project domain. A written evaluation is provided for each category, a maximum of 1000 characters. The written evaluation aims to support and clarify the numerical score. Each category is scored on a scale from 0 to 5, where:

5 Excellent
4 Very Good
3 Good
2 Satisfactory
1 Weak
0 Not Adequate

Evaluation Criteria and Scoring

For all categories, the reviewer considers the extent to which these criteria are met. 

Scientific Readiness (0–5 points)

  1. Institutional/Community Description: Evaluate the institution’s or community’s relevance and achievements in national and international projects, publications, and applied research.
  2. Impact and Outlook: Assess the innovation potential, expected scientific advancements, and broader impact on the research domain.
  3. Socioeconomic Impact: Consider contributions to open science, FAIR data principles, public revenue, and institutional goals.

Computational Readiness (0–5 points)

  1. Justification of Resources: Assess the appropriateness of requested computational resources (node hours, storage, cloud services) and the validity of estimates.
  2. Software and Tools: Verify whether the proposed software frameworks, libraries, and tools are suitable for the research.
  3. Multi-Year Planning: Evaluate whether multi-year applications provide a structured, realistic resource utilisation plan.

Institutional Readiness (0–5 points)

  1. Resource Distribution: Examine the transparency and fairness of resource allocation mechanisms.
  2. Internal Access Principles: Ensure adherence to internal access principles and the presence of feedback mechanisms.
  3. Prioritisation Strategy: Determine whether allocation decisions are based on need, impact, and strategic alignment.
  4. Subproject Accounting: Evaluate the necessity and feasibility of subproject accounting mechanisms.

 

Final Evaluation and Recommendations 

Each application will receive a total score from 0 to 15 based on the three evaluation categories. 

Evaluators must provide constructive feedback, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement to ensure a transparent and fair review process.