ESF provides the COST Office
through a European Commission contractCOST is supported
by the EU Framework Programme
COST
Evaluation Procedure
(Open Call for proposals)
Brussels, 15 March 2013
2
COST Founded in 1971
Intergovernemental initiative
FP7 budget : EUR 250 Mio (EU Commission)
supporting cooperation among scientists and researchers all fields
of research via coordination of nationally-funded research on a
European level
36 member countries (EU+)
1 Instrument: COST Action (4 year network - min.5 COST countries)
+/- 250 Running Action
Average yearly support: EUR 130,000 (Grant) for a network of 19
Countries
Support to networking activities (Meetings, Workshops, Training
Schools, Publications…)
3
Main features Introduced in 2006
Continuous call (submission any time of the year)
9 Domains + Trans-Domain Proposals (all areas covered)
Everybody affiliated to an institution can apply (applicant/
coordinator)
2 collections/year (last Friday of September & March)
7 ½ Months process from collection date to approval
Constant growth from 400 proposals (2007-1) to 600 (2012-1)
2 stage-process: preliminary (4p.) and full proposals (20-25p+ann.)
7% success rate
On-line tool for applicants (login linked to one collection),
assessors and monitors
Guideline for Assessment of applications for COST Actions (4111/11)
4
2 Submission patterns
The submission follows a different pattern
whether the proposal is submitted to one of the 9
COST Domains or as a an interdisciplinary
proposal, called Trans-Domain Proposal (TDP).
For the latter, a TDP Pilot has been set up for the
collections 2013-1 and 2013-2. It features a new
proposal template, revised evaluation criteria and
a reviewed scoring system.
5
Evaluation Process Collection 2012-1 (ex: n° proposals)
MONTH 1 MONTH 2 MONTH 3 MONTH 4 MONTH 5 MONTH 6 MONTH 7 MONTH 8
Collection of Preliminary
Proposals (612)
Eligibility check &
Domain allocation (593)
Domain Committee
assessment (116)
deadline Full Proposal (115)
External experts
assessment (77)
Domain Committee
Hearings (final list)
Approval CSO JAF
Preparation of
Full Proposal
Preparation of
MoU
Preliminary proposal eligible submitted - 2007/1 to 2012/1 (594)
No o
f pro
posals
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2007/1 2007/2 2008/1 2008/2 2009/1 2009/2 2010/1 2010/2 2011/1 2011/2 2012/1
7
Preliminary Proposal (1)
On-line form (applicant login linked to one collection)
+/- 600 proposals (2012-1) submitted in 9 Domains + Trans-
domain
4-5 pages
Anonymous for the assessors
8
Preliminary Proposal by Domain
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
BMBS FA FPS CMST ESSEM MPNS ICT ISCH TUD TDP
2007/1-2011/1(average)
2011/2
2012/1
No o
f p
roposals
9
Preliminary Proposal (2) Content:
Applicant details + Gender, ESR, Resubmission
Proposal title
Abstract (max.1000 char)
Key words (max.400 char)
Selected Domain (if TDP, selection of many Domains + justification)
Text of proposal (max.10000 char) - open text, but must address the
following points:
Backround, problems addressed
Benefits
Objectives, deliverables and expected scientific impact
Scientific program and innovation
Organisation
List of participant (min.5 COST countries) – Name, Institution, Country
10
Selection Procedure Stage 1.a: Preliminary Proposal – Domain Allocation
and eligibility check Screening by COST Science Officers and Head of Sc. Operations
2-3 weeks
½ day wrap-up meeting (PPAM) at COST Office
3% eliminated, 6% reshuffled (2012-1)
11
Selection Procedure Stage 1.a: Preliminary Proposal - Domain Allocation
and eligibility check – rejection criteria
Duplication with another proposal
Overlap with existing Action (duplication of research) – but
continuation is OK
Research funding
Out-of-scope: such as single activity (ex: conference)
Does not follow the proposal template
Contradiction with COST principles (ex: military purposes)
Proposal text not anonymous
Not 5 COST Countries
Any new category of ineligibility
12
Selection Procedure Stage 1.b: Preliminary Proposal – DC assessment Domain Committee members (4 year mandate - nominated by
CNC)
5 weeks process
1 week allocation: DC Chair/SO allocates proposals to assessor
3 weeks remote evaluation (marks and comments)
1 wk check: conflict of interest, outliers, phrasing of comments
6 questions – marks from 1 to 6 (max: 36) – 70% threshold
min.3 assessments/proposal
Allocation, monitoring & check by Science Officer & DC Chair
Top ranked by Domain invited to submit Full Proposal (Domain
distribution Formula/in relation with the final number of proposals)
85% eliminated
13
Selection Procedure Stage 1.b: Preliminary Proposal – DC assessment
Is COST the best mechanism for achieving the objectives?
Public utility/Science: does the proposed Action address real current
problems/ scientific issues?
Innovation?
Impact of the network: knowledge, capacity building, social impacts
Are networking aspects well motivated and developed in the
proposal?
presented in a clear, rational and understandable way?
14
Full Proposal (1)
On-line form (applicant login linked to one collection)
2 months preparation
Text and tables only
88 full proposals submitted in 2011-2
+/- 15-20 pages (draft technical annex) + additional information
(no strict limit)
Participants not anonymous for the assessors
15
Full Proposal (2) Content part I (Technical Annex) – in MoU:
Abstract (max.200 words)
Background (2-3 pages)
Objectives and benefits (max.2 pages)
Scientific programme (max.3-4 pages)
Organisation (max.2 pages)
Timetable
Economic Dimension
Dissemination plan (max.2 pages)
Content part II (Additional Information) – out MoU:
List of experts
History
Preliminary Workplan
Publications/remarks
16
Selection Procedure Stage 2.a: Full Proposal - External expert
assessment
External Expert Panel (EEP) selected for each Domain by DC
Chair and Science Officer
2-4 per proposal
3-5 weeks (depending on Domain)
Remote individual evaluation (marks and comments)
Threshold: 55/75
1 to 2 days consensus meeting (EEP-SO-DC Chair) at the end
of the assessment: consensus marks and comments
Invitation to DC hearing (30% eliminated)
17
Selection Procedure Stage 2.a: Full Proposal - External expert
assessment – evaluation criteria
Science and Networking: 4 questions – marks from 1 to 4 (weight
2)
Impact: 3 questions – marks from 1 to 4 (weight 2)
Structure and organisation: 4 questions – marks from 1 to 4
(weight 1)
Contribution to wider COST goals: 3 question – marks from 0 to 1
(weight 1)
Overal recommendations (strength – weaknesses)
18
Selection Procedure Stage 2.b: Full Proposal – DC Hearing
Domain Committee members (or core group -ISCH-)
1-2 day(s) hearings per Domain
spread over 3 weeks
Ranking (within Domain) and comment (justification if change
in EEP order)
List of proposal supported for funding (+ reserve list)
according to a Domain distribution Formula
19
Selection Procedure Stage 2.c: Full Proposal – Final list
submitted to JAF/CSO
Selected proposals from each Domain compiled into a single
list
Submission to JAF (composed of CSO members –
preparatory works of the CSO) who checks proposal against
COST principles
Official approval by CSO: the proposal becomes a COST
Action, publication of the Memorandum of Understanding
COST Office
Avenue Louise 149
1050 Brussels, Belgium
T: +32 (0)2 533 3800
Thank you
cost.eu/opencall
www.cost.eu
ESF provides the COST Office
through a European Commission contractCOST is supported
by the EU Framework Programme
Melae Langbein (Science Officer) Belgian COST event, Brussels, 15 March 2013
Proposal writing
“Tips and tricks”
ESF provides the COST Office
through a European Commission contractCOST is supported
by the EU Framework Programme
I: Overview
COST (Open Call) Proposals
• Preliminary proposal submission at any time at
www.cost.eu/opencall - next “collection dates” are:
• Friday 29 March 2013 (new Actions to start early 2014)
• Friday 27 September 2013 (new Actions to start late 2014)
• Guidelines for Assessment of applications of COST
Actions (COST 4111/11): • Annex A (pg 10) Assessment Criteria for Preliminary
Proposals
• Annex B (pg11-15) Assessment Criteria for Full Proposals
• Annex C (pg16-17) Template for Preliminary Proposals
• Annex D (pg18-29) Template for Full Proposals
• Information on current/ previous Actions in the FPS
Domain: www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fps/Actions/(all)
3
COST (Open Call) Proposals
New Actions
30-46
Full proposals
~ 11 000 words
Preliminary proposals
~ 1 500 words
80-120 400-600
By Collection date:
COST
4
COST vs FP7 – how to decide Attribute COST FP7
Funding for Networking (meetings, conferences, sci exchanges, training schools)
Research + some other activities
Scope Bottom-up Policy-driven (top-down)
Budget According to number of participants
Proposer makes budget request
Participation Open during Action life Closed once project starts
Participants Same and complementary expertise
Mainly complementary expertise
Members 36 COST countries
+ others in the mutual benefit
EU+
+ others when necessary for the project
5
ESF provides the COST Office
through a European Commission contractCOST is supported
by the EU Framework Programme
II: Preliminary Proposals
PP->FP success rate ~ 20% (10%-65%)
Prelim Proposals: “tips and tricks”
1. Read the preliminary proposal assessment
criteria and maximise score for each
– In the design of the proposed Action, and
– reflect the assessment language in your proposal AND justify eg “
The topic of this proposal is very important and timely because . .
.” “The proposed approach is highly innovative in that it . . .”
2. Ask Chairs of recent running COST Actions for a
copy of their (obviously successful) Preliminary
Proposal
7
8
Assessment Criteria: Preliminary Proposals
I.1 RIGHT FOR COST?
Is COST the best mechanism for achieving the
Action's objectives?
yes no
6 5 4 3 2 1
I.2 PUBLIC UTILITY/SCIENCE
Does the proposed Action address real current
problems/ scientific issues?
yes no
6 5 4 3 2 1
I.3 INNOVATION
Is the proposed Action innovative?
yes no
6 5 4 3 2 1
I.4 IMPACT
Would the proposed network make a significant
difference in terms of knowledge, capacity building,
social impacts, etc?
yes no
6 5 4 3 2 1
I.5 NETWORKING
Are networking aspects well motivated and
developed in the proposal?
yes no
6 5 4 3 2 1
I.6
PRESENTATION
Is the proposed Action presented in a clear and
understandable way?
yes no
6 5 4 3 2 1
Preliminary Proposal
assessment
I.1
RIGHT FOR COST? Is COST the best mechanism for achieving the Action's Objectives? • High marks are given to proposals for which COST is the best adapted mechanism. • Lower marks are given otherwise.
yes no 6 5 4 3 2 1
I.2
PUBLIC UTILITY/SCIENCE Does the proposed Action address real current problems/ scientific issues? • High marks are given to highly exciting and interesting proposals on a very important and/or timely topic. • Lower marks are given otherwise.
yes no 6 5 4 3 2 1
I.3
INNOVATION Is the proposed Action innovative? • High marks are given to highly innovative proposals. • Lower marks are given otherwise.
yes no 6 5 4 3 2 1
9
Preliminary Proposal
assessment
I.4
IMPACT Would the proposed network make a significant difference in terms of knowledge, capacity building, social impacts, etc? • High marks are given to proposals with high potential impact. • Lower marks are given otherwise.
yes no 6 5 4 3 2 1
I.5
NETWORKING Are networking aspects well motivated and developed in the proposal? • High marks for proposals that both motivate the need for networking in the field and show how the proposed networking will add value to the current state-of-the-art. • Lower marks are given otherwise.
yes no 6 5 4 3 2 1
I.6
PRESENTATION Is the proposed Action presented in a clear, rational and understandable way? • High marks for proposals that are presented in a clear, rational and understandable way. • Lower marks are given otherwise.
yes no 6 5 4 3 2 1
10
Prelim Proposals: “tips and tricks” 3. Get people (eg colleague/ DC Expert/ DC
Member) to “assess” your proposal before you
submit it, and revise the proposal according to
their feedback
4. 6 (out of 36) marks for presentation:
Get (near) native speaker to proof read the proposal
Get someone outside the network/ field to read the
proposal – is it clear without “inside knowledge”
Follow the template AND clearly address each
criterion (difficult!)
11
Prelim Proposals: “tips and tricks”
12
PROPOSAL TEMPLATE
• BACKGROUND, PROBLEMS
ADDRESSED
• BENEFITS
• OBJECTIVES,
DELIVERABLES AND
EXPECTED SCIENTIFIC
IMPACT
• SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME
AND INNOVATION
• ORGANISATION
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA I.1 RIGHT FOR COST? Is COST the best mechanism for achieving the
Action's objectives?
I.2 PUBLIC UTILITY/SCIENCE Does the proposed Action address real current
problems/ scientific issues?
I.3 INNOVATION Is the proposed Action innovative?
I.4 IMPACT Would the proposed network make a significant
difference in terms of knowledge, capacity
building, social impacts, etc?
I.5 NETWORKING Are networking aspects well motivated and
developed in the proposal?
I.6 PRESENTATION Is the proposed Action presented in a clear and
understandable way?
Prelim Proposals: “tips and tricks” 1. Read the preliminary proposal assessment criteria and maximise
score for each – In the design of the proposed Action, and
– reflect the assessment language in your proposal AND justify eg “
The topic of this proposal is very important and timely because . .
.” “The proposed approach is highly innovative in that it . . .”
2. Ask Chairs of recent running COST Actions for a copy of their
(obviously successful) Preliminary Proposal
3. Get people (eg colleague/ DC Expert/ DC Member) to “assess”
your proposal before you submit it, and revise the proposal
according to their feedback
4. 6 (out of 36) marks for presentation:
Get (near) native speaker to proof read the proposal
Get someone outside the network/ field to read the proposal
– is it clear without “inside knowledge”
Follow the template AND clearly address each criterion
(difficult!)
13
ESF provides the COST Office
through a European Commission contractCOST is supported
by the EU Framework Programme
III: Full Proposals
FP->DCH success rate ~ 60% (40%-82%)
Full Proposals: “tips and tricks” 1. Read the full proposal assessment criteria and
mark point descriptors and maximise score for
each • In the design of the proposed Action, and
• reflect the mark point descriptor (1/2/3/4) language in your
proposal AND justify eg “. . . important impacts very likely in
several respects . . .”
• Again note the difference between the template (which must
be followed) and the assessment criteria (which must be
addressed while following the template).
2. Read the MoUs of recent new COST Actions (MoU text = Full Proposal text)
3. Full proposals: A (Science & Networking) and
B (Impact) are double weighted – these MUST
be strong to succeed (each point = 2/75)
15
Full Proposals: “tips and tricks” 4. Differentiate your proposal from existing
Actions, networks and (EU/ regional) projects
5. Get people outside the network/ proposal
(especially DC Experts) to “assess” your full
proposal before submission and revise it taking
into account their feedback
6. BEFORE you submit a proposal send your cv
to Science Officer and DC Chair to express
interest in being an EEP Member (= insight
into full proposal assessment process)
16
17
• A. ABSTRACT AND KEYWORDS
• B. BACKGROUND
• B.1 General background
• B.2 Current state of knowledge
• B.3 Reasons for the Action
• B.4 Complementarity with other research
programmes
• C. OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS
• C.1 Aim
• C.2 Objectives
• C.3 How networking within the Action will yield the
objectives?
• C.4 Potential impact of the Action
• C.5 Target groups/end users
Full Proposal Template
• D. SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME
• D.1 Scientific focus
• D.2 Scientific work plan methods and
means
• E. ORGANISATION
• E.1 Coordination and organisation
• E.2 Working Groups
• E.3 Liaison and interaction with other
research programmes
• E.4 Gender balance and involvement of
early-stage researchers (ESR)
• F. TIMETABLE
• G. ECONOMIC DIMENSION
• H. DISSEMINATION PLAN
• H.1 Who?
• H.2 What?
• H.3 How?
Templates available in Document COST
4111/11 “Guidelines for Assessment of
applications for COST Actions”, Annex C)
18
Assessment Criteria: Full Proposals A SCIENCE AND NETWORKING (Weight 2)
A.1 Does the proposed Action address real current problems/scientific issues?
4 3 2 1
A.2 Does the proposed Action show awareness of the state-of-the-art of the relevant scientific/technical/socio-economic fields? 4 3 2 1
A.3 Is the proposed Action innovative?
A.4 Does the proposed Action answer a need for the networking of experts in the field? 4 3 2 1
B IMPACT (Weight 2)
B.1A If the proposed Action aims primarily to meet European economic or societal needs, how likely is it to achieve useful impacts?
B.1B If the proposed Action aims primarily to contribute to the development of the scientific or technological field, how likely is it to achieve useful impacts?
4 3 2 1
B.1C If the proposed Action aims BOTH to meet European economic or societal needs, AND to contribute to the development of the scientific or technological field, how likely is it to achieve useful impacts?
4 3 2 1
B.2 Are there clear plans for stimulating the production of high quality outputs? 4 3 2 1
B.3 Is attention given to the involvement of stakeholders in order to increase the potential application of results (including, where appropriate, fostering their commercial exploitation)?
4 3 2 1
C STRUCTURE AND ORGANISATION (Weight 1)
C.1 Is the proposal presented in a clear, convincing, and appropriate way? 4 3 2 1
C.2 Are the workplan and organisation appropriate? 4 3 2 1
C.3 Are the time schedule and the setting of milestones appropriate? 4 3 2 1
C.4 Are appropriate plans made for monitoring and evaluating the achievement of objectives?
D CONTRIBUTION TO WIDER COST GOALS (Weight 1)
D.1 How well does the proposed Action aim to involve early stage researchers? 1 0
D.2 How well does the proposed Action aim at gender balance? 1 0
D.3 Does the proposed Action have the potential to contribute to the solution of global challenges in a global dimension? 1 0
Threshold: 55 points
out of 75
19
Assessment Criteria: Full Proposals
A SCIENCE AND NETWORKING (Weight 2) A.1 Does the proposed Action address real current problems/scientific issues? 4. The topic is very important and /or timely and proposal presents the correct approaches.
3. The topic is very important and /or timely, but proposal fails to present the correct approaches.
2. The topic is not important nor timely, although proposal presents the correct approaches.
1. Serious lack of substance and/or relevance.
A.2 Does the proposed Action show awareness of the state-of-the-art of the relevant
scientific/technical/socio-economic fields? 4. Excellent and up to date awareness of relevant scientific/technical fields
3. Good awareness of relevant fields.
2. Defective awareness of relevant fields.
1. Serious lack of awareness of relevant fields.
A.3 Is the proposed Action innovative? 4. Highly innovative: identifies a significant new problem and/or a significant new approach.
3. Innovative in some notable aspects.
2. Not very innovative: the topic is already well-studied and/or the proposal largely follows a well-trodden
approach.
1. Not at all innovative.
A.4 Does the proposed Action answer a need for the networking of experts in the field? 4. Networking in this field ranks amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art and the
proposal uses such a mechanism in a sound manner.
3. Networking in this field ranks amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art, but the
proposal fails to use such a mechanism in a sound manner.
2. Networking in this field is not amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art, although the
proposal uses such a mechanism in a sound manner.
1. Networking in this field is not amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art and the
proposal fails to use such a mechanism in a sound manner.
Tips and Tricks: FP Section A
1. Choose a very important and /or timely topic and
propose the correct approaches
2. Excellent and up to date awareness of relevant
scientific/technical fields – If resubmitting proposal UPDATE the SOTA with any new
Actions/ projects since previous submission even if previous
SOTA was excellent
3. Make proposal highly innovative: a significant new
problem and/or a significant new approach
4. Ensure (and prove) that networking in this field
ranks amongst the best mechanisms to progress
the state-of-the-art and the proposal uses such a
mechanism in a sound manner.
20
21
Assessment Criteria: Full Proposals
B IMPACT (Weight 2) B.1 If the proposed Action aims BOTH to meet European economic or societal needs,
AND to contribute to the development of the scientific or technological field, how likely
is it to achieve useful impacts? 4. Important impacts very likely in several respects.
3. Some notable impacts likely.
2. May make some minor impacts.
1. Unlikely to make useful impacts.
B.2 Are there clear plans for stimulating the production of high quality outputs? 4. Plans for outputs are clear, wide-ranging and ambitious.
3. Plans for outputs are reasonable.
2. Plans for outputs are unambitious or defective.
1. Plans for outputs are minimal or absent.
B.3 Is attention given to the involvement of stakeholders in order to increase the
potential application of results (including, where appropriate, fostering their
commercial exploitation)? 4. Stakeholders are already part of experts who took part in the preparation of the proposal.
3. Plans for implication of stakeholders are clear, wide-ranging and feasible.
2. Plans for implication of stakeholders are reasonable.
1. Plans for implication of stakeholders are unambitious or defective.
Tips and Tricks: FP Section B
1. Ensure that important impacts are very likely in
several respects and describe these impacts also
in terms of scientific/ technical/ economic/ societal/
environmental,
2. Clearly describe plans for wide-ranging and
ambitious outputs,
3. Involve as many groups of relevant stakeholders
as possible in the preparation of the proposal (and
ensure that they are listed as having participated in
the proposal).
• Or, at least ensure that plans for implication of
stakeholders are clear, wide-ranging and feasible
22
23
Assessment Criteria: Full Proposals
C STRUCTURE AND ORGANISATION (Weight 1) C.1 Is the proposal presented in a clear, convincing, and appropriate way? 4. Very clearly written with compelling argument; fully appropriate format.
3. Well written; argument is easy to follow; appropriate format but may need minor changes;
2. Poorly written, but argument can be followed with effort; and/or defective format.
1. Poorly written; argument is unclear; and/or inappropriate format.
C.2 Are the workplan and organisation appropriate? 4. Workplan and organisation make full, productive and cost-effective use of COST opportunities.
3. Workplan and organisation are reasonable, any defects are minor.
2. Workplan and/or organisation show significant defects.
1. Workplan and/or organisation are lacking or inappropriate or unclear.
C.3 Are the time schedule and the setting of milestones appropriate? 4. Schedule and milestones are well-defined and practical.
3. Schedule and milestones are reasonable.
2. Schedule and/or milestones show some defects.
1. Schedule and/or milestones are lacking or inappropriate or unclear.
C.4 Are appropriate plans made for monitoring and evaluating the achievement of
objectives? 4. Monitoring and evaluation plans are well-defined and practical.
3. Monitoring and evaluation plans are reasonable.
2. Monitoring and evaluation plans show some defects.
1. Monitoring and evaluation plans are lacking or inappropriate or unclear.
Tips and Tricks: FP Section C
1. Ensure proposal is very clearly written with compelling
argument and fully appropriate format (follow template):
• Get (near) native speaker to proof read proposal
• Get someone external to the proposal to check for clarity
2. Ensure workplan and organisation make full, productive
and cost-effective use of COST opportunities.
• Ensure all COST instruments (various meetings, STSMs,
Training Schools, Dissemination are used)
3. Include clear time schedule and appropriate
milestones • Milestones enable the monitoring of progress (milestones are
not the same thing as deliverables)
4. Include well-defined and practical monitoring and
evaluation plans
24
25
Assessment Criteria: Full Proposals
D CONTRIBUTION TO WIDER COST GOALS (Weight 1) D.1 How well does the proposed Action aim to involve early stage
researchers? 1. An innovative plan is presented in addition to the standard template in Section E.4 of Full
Proposal
0. Otherwise.
D.2 How well does the proposed Action aim at gender balance? 1. An innovative plan is presented in addition to the standard template in Section E.4 of Full
Proposal
0. Otherwise.
D.3 Does the proposed Action have the potential to contribute to the solution
of global challenges in a global dimension? 1. Proposal will certainly attract interest from a wide range of non-
COST Countries if approved
0. Otherwise.
Tips and Tricks: FP Section D 1. Present an innovative plan for ESR involvement in addition to the
standard template in Section E.4 of Full Proposal:
• Refer to COST 295/09 (CSO Strategy for ESRs) and set targets (eg 20%
of annual budget) for STSMs, at least one Training School per year,
ESRs as Leaders of at least ½ the WGs
• Set target for % of meeting reimbursement places given to ESRs
• ESR as Chair/ Vice Chair of the Action
2. Present an innovative plan for gender balance in addition to the
standard template in Section E.4 of Full Proposal:
• Eg guarantee that at least 40% of the Core Group (Chair, Vice Chair, WG
leaders, STSM manager) will be of either gender
• Guarantee that at least 40% of STSMs and Training School places will
be allocated to either gender
• Gender balance in Chair and Vice Chair roles
3. Prove that proposal will certainly attract interest from a
wide range of non-COST Countries if approved • Include institutions from a wide range (eg different regions) of non-COST
countries in the proposal 26
Full Proposals: tips and tricks Get geographical balance in the network: cover N S E W
Ask DC Members from “missing” countries to suggest contacts
www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fps?dc_members
Ask MC Members from those countries in relevant Actions for
suggestions www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fps/Actions
www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fps/Actions/FP1207?management
(but don’t just recycle the same people into your proposal)
Do not just resubmit an unsuccessful FP7 proposal as
COST Action proposal
FP7 = research funding; COST = networking funding
FP7 has Work Packages (WP), COST has Working Groups (WG)
Dissemination: best to have a transversal Dissemination
Task Force that draws people from each WG, NOT a WG
Dissemination
27
ESF provides the COST Office
through a European Commission contractCOST is supported
by the EU Framework Programme
IV: DC Hearings
DCH-> New Action success rate ~ 53% (44%-80%)
Proposals: tips and tricks
DC Hearings Follow the instructions in invitation email
Short overview of objectives, outcomes and
impact of proposal
Focus on addressing issues raised by the EEP
Practice the presentation
Questions:
Listen to the full question (don’t interrupt
the questioner)
Give calm clear concise (non-defensive)
answer.
29
COST Actions - examples Biosafety of forest transgenic trees: improving the
scientific basis for safe tree development and
implementation of EU policy directives - FP0905
To evaluate and substantiate the
scientific knowledge relevant for
genetically modified tree (GMT)
biosafety protocols by putting
together already existing information
generated in various European
countries as the basis for future EU
policy and regulation for the
environmental impact assessment
and the safe development and
practical use of GMTs.
30
COST Actions - examples
Experimental and Computational Micro-
Characterisation Techniques in Wood Mechanics
– FP0802
Exploiting emerging experimental
and computational techniques for
improving the knowledge of
microstructural features of wood
and their impact on macroscopic
material behaviour will create new
possibilities for the development
and engineering design of
innovative wood-based products in
the future.
Stimulating the use of wood as a renewable and CO2
neutral raw material will contribute to a sustainable
development in Europe. 31
COST Actions - examples
Impact of Renewable Materials in Packaging for
Sustainability - Development of Renewable Fibre and
Bio-based Materials for New Packaging Applications -
FP1003
To enhance knowledge
concerning materials derived
from the forest sector and thus
identify potential new renewable
packaging solutions.
• Issue a set of guidelines explaining
the different end-of life technologies
that are available for renewable
packaging solutions.
• Build four technology roadmaps to
direct future research. 32
BMBS FA FPS MPNS CMST ESSEM ICT TUD ISCH TDP TOTAL
PP 75 44 20 39 20 61 42 30 146 98 575
FP 15 10 8 9 13 11 12 9 14 13 114
PP-FP 23% 40% 23% 65% 18% 29% 30% 10% 13% 20%
DC H 10 6 5 9 9 9 6 8 6 68
FP-DCH 67% 75% 56% 69% 82% 75% 67% 57% 46% 60%
New
Action 5 3 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 36
DCH-New
Action 50% 50% 80% 44% 44% 44% 50% 63% 67% 53%
PP-New
Action 7% 15% 10% 20% 7% 10% 10% 3% 4% 7% 33
Proposals: tips and tricks
Who can help you: CNC BE
Chairs of running Actions
from BE
relevant to your area
DC Members
from BE
from countries that you need
contacts in
34
Action Chairs from BE
35
domai
n code contact_e
mail name name city contact_ph
one
FA FA12
01
ann.vanso
om@ugen
t.be
Prof Ann Van
Soom Ghent University
Merelbek
e ++32
92647550
ISCH IS090
6
patriarche
@fusl.ac.
be
Dr Geoffroy
Patriarche Facultés universitaires Saint-
Louis (FUSL) Brussels
+ 32 (0)2
787 93 23
ISCH IS120
5 licata@ul
b.ac.be
Dr Laurent
Licata Université libre de Bruxelles Brussels 26503237
MPN
S MP09
01
carla.bitte
ncourt@u
mons.ac.b
e
Dr Carla
Bittencourt University of Mons Mons
326537385
1
MPN
S MP11
04
herve.lam
y@aerono
mie.be Dr Herve Lamy
Belgian Institute for Space
Aeronomy Brussels
322373041
8
MPN
S MP11
05
paul.kieke
ns@UGe
nt.be
Prof. Paul
Kiekens Faculty of Engineering
Ghent University
Gent
(Zwijnaar
de)
+32 9
2645735
MPN
S MP12
01
victor.mos
hchalkov
@fys.kule
uven.ac.b
e
Prof Victor
Moshchalkov KU Leuven Leuven
321632761
8
MPN
S TD09
06
Patrick.Fl
ammang
@umons.
ac.be
Dr Patrick
Flammang Université de Mons Mons
+32-65-
373439
TUD TU09
05
jan.belis
@UGent.
be Prof Jan Belis Ghent University Ghent
329264547
8
www.cost.eu
Domain pages: e.g.
www.cost.eu/fps
Open Call:
www.cost.eu/opencall
Guidelines:
www.cost.eu/guidelines
FAQ:
www.cost.eu/service/faq
Reciprocal Agreements:
www.cost.eu/about_cost/reci
procal_agreements
Library:
www.cost.eu/library
Events:
www.cost.eu/events
36
COST Office
Avenue Louise 149
1050 Brussels, Belgium
T: +32 (0)2 533 3800
F: +32 (0)2 533 3890
www.cost.eu
COST News by e-mail?
Sign up at http://www.cost.eu/notification
http://www.linkedin.com/
groupRegistration?gid=1699127
http://www.facebook.com/
COST.Programme
http://twitter.com/COSToffice