Scientific summary
Summary of main goals and hypothesis
Evaluation of quality of the project and scientists respectively; grading:
5 = Outstanding. The project /the scientists are of international top quality. The project/the scientists can be compared to the best in the field globally.
4 = Excellent. The project/the scientists are of high international quality and are internationally recognised
3 = Very good. The project/the scientists are of average quality internationally.
2 =Good. The project/the scientists are of low to average international quality
1 = Insufficient
Feasibility of the research plan and proposed methods:
5 = It is very likely that the goals of the project can be achieved in accordance with proposed methods and presented research plans
4 = It is likely that the goals can be achieved in accordance with proposed methods and presented research plans
3 = It is not likely that several of the goals can be achieved in accordance with proposed methods and presented research plans
2 = It is unlikely that the majority of the goals can be achieved in accordance with proposed methods and presented research plans
1 = This project can most likely not achieve any of the goals presented based on the proposed methods and research plan
Originality
5 =This project is outstanding and groundbreaking in an international context
4 = This project is groundbreaking in an international context
3 = This project is novel but not groundbreaking in an international context.
2 = Part of this project is novel but not groundbreaking in an international context.
1 = This project lacks originality
Is there a coherent research question?
5 = There is a coherent research focus for this project. Involved groups have complementary skills and are gathered around novel questions were they have potential to create groundbreaking science
4 = There is a coherent research focus for this project. Involved group have complementary skills and are gathered around novel questions that can generate science of international quality
3 = There is a coherent research focus for parts of this project. Several of the involved group have complementary skills that can generate good science.
2 = There is a coherent research focus for this project but the composition of involved groups is not sufficient to secure focus for this project
1 = This project lacks focus and is only a way for the researchers to attract additional funding to already existing activities.