Selection process ****************************************************************************************** * About the Kellner Research Programme (KRC) ****************************************************************************************** The Kellner Research Chairs (KRC) programme supports excellent researchers in establishing internationally recognized research groups at Charles University (CU). The initiative is co-funded by The Kellner Family Foundation (TKFF) and Charles University to attract and sustain top-level researchers who will contribute to CU’s long-term excelle visibility, and societal impact. Each selected Chair will receive institutional and financial support for a three-year peri commitment for continued support for two additional years. ****************************************************************************************** * Principles of Scientific Evaluation ****************************************************************************************** The evaluation process is guided by the core principles of: • Excellence, transparency, and fairness – following open, merit-based, and impartial eval standards. • Independence – reviewers act in a personal capacity, not on behalf of institutions or co • Equality and inclusion – reviewers ensure equal opportunities, respecting career diversi legitimate career breaks. • Confidentiality – all materials and communications are to remain strictly confidential. • Feedback and transparency – applicants receive constructive feedback to enhance their fu performance. Evaluators are expected to comply with the European Charter for Researchers and the Code o Recruitment of Researchers. ****************************************************************************************** * Evaluation Structure ****************************************************************************************** Independent Experts Each proposal will be evaluated by two independent international experts (three in justifi Experts are selected for: • disciplinary and methodological fit, • diversity (gender, geography, sector), • and absence of conflicts of interest. Evaluators assess applications based on three main criteria: Excellence (50%), Impact (30%), and Implementation and Sustainability (20%). Steering Committee (SC) Composition: 1.Vice-Rector for Research (Chair) 2.2 representatives of TKFF 3.1 representative of CUEF 4.3 external disciplinary representatives (SSH, SCI, MED) Role of SC: 1.Confirm external evaluations 2.Approve final list of selected Chairs 3.Oversee programme integrity, equality, and transparency ****************************************************************************************** * Evaluation Timeline ****************************************************************************************** • Eligibility check – by the programme administrator. • Independent remote evaluation – by two (or three) independent, international experts. • Consensus meeting – evaluators align comments and scores into a single report. • Interview – top-ranked candidates (max 10) are invited for interviews. • Steering Committee approval – final ranked list and appointment. • Mid-term and final evaluations – progress and sustainability review. ****************************************************************************************** * Criteria for individual evaluation ****************************************************************************************** Criterion Sub-criterion Weight 1. Excellence 1.1. Quality and credibili50% of the research and innovation objectives – novelty, methodology, interdisciplinarity, gender and ethical aspects. 1.2. International standing and leadership of the applicant – major achievements, supervision experience, capacity to establish a high-level team. 1.3. Potential to advance the state of the art and CU’s visibility – contribution to global research, positioning CU as a hub of excellence. 2. Impact 2.1. Contribution to CU’s 30% excellence and competitiveness – potential to attract further international funding (ERC, Horizon Europe). 2.2. Mentoring, capacity-building, and knowledge transfer – support for early-career researchers and dissemination of best practices. 2.3. Societal and institutional impact – addressing societal challenges, Open Science, responsible research, and communication. 3. Implementation 3.1. Feasibility and coher20%e of the work plan – realistic milestones, deliverables, and resource allocation. 3.2. Institutional commitment and infrastructure support – integration strategy and sustainability beyond Foundation funding. 3.3. Risk management – identification and mitigation of scientific and operational risks. Each evaluator assesses the assigned proposal independently using the official criteria an Evaluators submit their Individual Evaluation Report Each criterion is scored from 0–5, where: • 0 = missing information • 1 = not adequately addressed • 2 = significant weaknesses • 3 = addressed with shortcomings • 4 = very well addressed with minor shortcomings • 5 = excellently addressed The maximum total is 15 points (100%), with a threshold of 80% required for interview cons c) Interviews Top-ranked applicants (above 80%) are invited for an online interview (30 minutes: 15 min min Q&A). During the interviews, the following criteria will be evaluated: Criterion Weight Scientific skills, including strategic 40%ent and evidence of creative/innovative thinking Match between candidate’s profile and t30%hosting institution/group Communication and people skills, includ20% clarity, leadership, and capacity to execute the project Each interview criterion is scored 0–5. The final score combines: • 50% remote evaluation (max 15 points) • 50% interview evaluation (max 15 points). In case of a tie, the proposal with a higher score in Criterion 1 – Excellence prevails; i Criterion 2 – Impact decides. 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 ethics review as it is outlined in their statutes. Evaluators are expected to flag potenti in the proposal but not penalize applicants for them. Ethics screening is advisory and wil separately if the proposal is selected. Evaluators should also consider the AI-related eth described in Part B of the application. 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. 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.