Selection process
******************************************************************************************
*
******************************************************************************************
The selection process consists of the following stages:
a) Eligibility check
Each proposal will be checked against a set of eligibility criteria described in section 1
for Applicants [ URL "https://cuni.cz/UKEN-2187-version1-guide_for_applicants.pdf"] . It w
the programme administrator (CU).
b) Individual scientific evaluation
Each proposal passing the eligibility check will proceed to an independent evaluation cond
two independent experts who specialize in the scientific domain of the proposal, based on
evaluation criteria (detailed below). In some cases, such as highly interdisciplinary proj
evaluator may be required. Furthermore, a third evaluator will be assigned to each proposa
ready to step in if any of the original two evaluators reports a conflict of interest or f
the evaluation for any reason.
For evaluation purposes, the proposals will be divided into four scientific panels: Natura
Medical and Health Sciences, Social Sciences, Humanities, and the Arts. The panel chairs w
by the scientific director of the programme, covering all disciplines of research performe
An online consensus meeting of the two independent experts will follow to determine the fi
each application, with these meetings scheduled by the programme administrator. A maximum
applicants with the highest scores from the independent evaluation will be invited to an o
All proposals advancing to the interview stage must meet a minimum threshold of 70%, hence
maximum number of applicants to proceed to the interviews.
Criteria for individual evaluation
Criterion Sub-criterion
1. Excellence 1.1. Quality and credibility of the research/innovation project; le
methodology, appropriate consideration of inter/multidisciplinary a
1.2. Potential of the
researcher to reach or re-
enforce a professional
maturity /independence during
the fellowship
1.3. Potential of the proposed
intersectoral collaboration
with non-academic partners
2. Impact 2.1. Enhancing the potential and future career prospects of the res
2.2. Quality of the proposed
measures to communicate the
project activities to different
target audiences
2.3. Contribution to the
achievement of the United
Nations Sustainable Development
Goals
3. Implementation 3.1. Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan including the app
allocation of tasks and resources
3.2. Appropriateness of
the management procedures,
including risk management
Each criterion will be valued on a scale 0-5 (0=missing information, 1=the criterion is no
addressed, 2=the criterion contains significant weaknesses, 3=the criterion is addressed w
of shortcomings, 4=the criterion is very well addressed with only minor shortcomings 5=the
excellently addressed). The maximum value is 15 points (100%). The value can be stated to
place. In order to avoid a recruitment of underqualified applicants, an overall threshold,
sum of the 3 individual scores, is 10,5 (70%) points.
In case of equal results, the preference will be given to the proposal scored higher in th
Excellence. In case both proposals scored equal points in the criterion 1. Excellence, the
be given to the proposal scored higher in criterion 2. Impact.
c) Interviews
Eighteen applications that received the highest score during the Individual evaluation sta
invited to present their proposed project at an interview panel.
The Interview committee will consist of four independent experts and two members of the SC
of the HR department will be present to discuss the employment conditions to the applicant
administrator will be also present to keep notes of the interview. The interviews will be
in English, with an oral presentation of the applicant followed by the Q&A session.
The interview will last 30 minutes, with 15 minutes dedicated to the applicant's presentat
minutes to a Q&A section.
During the interviews, the following criteria will be evaluated:
Criterion W
1. Scientific skills, including the strategic intent of the research and evidence of crea4
2. Match between the candidate's profile and the hosting institution/group 3
3. Communication and people skills, encompassing the ability to engage in scientific disc2
of presentation, leadership skills, and the capacity to successfully execute the project
Each criterion will be evaluated on a scale of 1-5, where 0 indicates missing information
excellent performance.
d) Final evaluation score
Subsequently, the final evaluation score will be calculated as follows: the score of the i
evaluation (maximum 15 points) will have a weight of 50%, and the interview result score (
points) will also have a weight of 50%. In case of equal total score, preference will be g
proposal score higher in the interviews part of the evaluation.
e) Ethics review
Ethics review - will be done by the research integrity officer of CU based on the ethics s
questionnaire, which will be a part of the application. The Charles University Research Et
and Research Ethics Commissions at individual faculties will be called in to participate i
of ethics review as it is outlined in their statutes. The proposals recommended for fundin
reserve list will be scrutinized against a set of ethical principles. Horizon Europe princ
in research will be strictly followed. The Review will start with an Ethics Screening and
a further analysis called the Ethics Assessment will be conducted. The Ethics Review can l
requirements that can be turned into contractual obligations. See chapter 13 of the Guide
of prohibited and restricted research activities.
f) Final decision
The results of the individual evaluation & interviews will be approved by the Steering Com
a final list of proposals recommended for funding and those on reserve list will be publis
programme website. At least four individual members of the Steering Committee must approve
g) Redress procedure
Appeal procedure - for procedural reasons, the unsuccessful candidates will have an opport
against the decision within 10 days of the decision delivery. If the Steering Committee fi
reasoning sufficient, it may decide about a re-evaluation. The re-evaluation will be done
evaluators than those who evaluated the proposal during the first evaluation.
h) Equal opportunities
Female researchers are welcome to apply. The programme administrator will make sure that a
the experts appointed as the independent evaluators are women. The independent evaluators
on the Unconscious Bias in order to prevent any gender biases and stereotypes during the s
Obrázek s textem 
N.B. Funded by the European Union. Views and o
are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the Europe
the European Research Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting author
responsible for them.