Assessment of STSM applications

Assessment of STSM applications – criteria and rules

A. Criteria

  1. Eligibility
    1. As defined in 6.1 and 6.2, in the COST Vademecum Part 1 – COST Action
  2. Merit Review Criteria
    1. Is the workplan aligned with the relevant technical/scientific fields of the Action, as defined in the MoU ?
    2. Is the CV of the candidate relevant for the workplan?
    3. Is there added-value for the STSM applicant ?
    4. Is there added-value for the host institution/research group in the proposed STSM ?
    5. Does the workplan have potential for further coordinated scientific activities and relevant results beyond the period of the STSM (e.g., joint research work, publications, PhD supervision, project proposals, etc) ?

B. Rules and procedure

  1. The following documents are submitted to the STSM coordinator as defined in COST Vademecum Part 1 – COST Action:
    • COST application form
    • Applicant’s CV
    • Motivation letter
    • Work plan
    • Invitation from host
    • Support letter from home institution
  2. The STSM coordinator checks the eligibility as defined in A.1 and sends applications to the STSM Evaluation Board for evaluation according to criteria defined in A.2.
  3. The STSM Evaluation Board is given a maximum of 2 weeks to assess the application.
    1. The absence of feedback from any member of the STSM Evaluation Board is assumed as a “YES, with no remarks” to the recommendation of the STSM coordinator.
  4. Based on the comments received from the STSM evaluation Board, the STSM coordinator may ask the applicant to change and resubmit the application.
    1. In this case the STSM coordinator decides about the final evaluation of the modified version of the STSM application without sending it again to the STSM evaluation board.
  5. The STSM coordinator sends the applications to the MC Chair with a recommendation for acceptance/rejection, based on the assessment obtained from the evaluation board.
  6. The MC Chair submits the application to the MC, including his own evaluation and comments, as well as those from the STSM coordinator.
  7. The MC votes the recommendation of the STSM coordinator (1 country = 1 Vote).
    1. The absence of a vote is assumed as a “YES” to the recommendation
    2. Vote against must be justified
    3. One week is given to the MC to vote
  8. The MC Chair informs the applicant about the evaluation results.

Approved in the MC meeting of 14/September, Sardinia Cagliari
Amended in the MC meeting of 12/April, Poznan, Poland