LS26 Targeted Prevention / Evaluation criteria

The following criteria are used in the evaluation.

Main evaluation criteria

• Scope: Is the project within the scope of the call as described in this document? 

Projects that do not meet theall key requirements regarding scope will be rejected by the jury, regardless of scientific quality.  

The key criteria in the evaluation of the proposals are are scientific excellence ofand theinnovation, projectrelevance and applicantsimpact,  and the pathway to interdisciplinarity :

• Innovative character of the proposed researchwork.
  project: Does the proposed research work meet the highest relevant international quality standards? Does the project show scientific originality and innovative aspects? Are the methods and research approaches appropriate and innovative?
• Scientific excellence and academicinnovation. To what extent does the project demonstrate scientific novelty in its proposed approach? What is the additional value of this innovation for addressing the specified research gap? Is the project’s overall approach scientifically excellent and appropriate for reaching its aims?
• Relevance and impact. To what extent does this project contribute to advances in targeted prevention research? How has the team ensured the relevance of the project’s aims, methodology and anticipated outcomes for the specified risk group?  What is the potential of the applicant(s)project to lead to improvements in the health and well-being in this group? How great an impact is this project likely to have on the health of this group?
• Pathway to implementation.: Does the project present a pathway to implementation that will facilitate its intended impact? To what extent have factors relevant for implementation (e.g., stakeholders, milestones, readouts, timeline, economic, budgetary, etc.) been addressed?
• Composition and excellene of team. Do the applicants demonstrate the scientific expertise and potential to conduct the proposed research? Please note(Note that scientific excellence and track record iswill measuredbe assessed according to academic age.
)
• TeamDoes compositionthe and interdisciplinary collaboration: Teams shouldteam include an appropriate mixcombination of expertise,expertise bringingand bring together ICTresearchers andfrom SSHcomplementary researchers.scientific Afields clearas descriptionrequired? Has the expertise of theadditional rolesrelevant ofstakeholders thebeen individualincluded partnersas and a clear project management plan must be presented. This should demonstrate how both ICT and SSH researchers will contribute to critical stages of developing and executing the project, and how communication will be fostered throughout the project lifetime.
• Relevance: does the proposed research contribute to mid- to long-term concepts that question/redefine/reevaluate how digital technologies & practices can be better aligned with established human values? Does the proposal contribute to ad-vances in Digital Humanism?appropriate?

Further evaluation criteria

• Feasibility: Can the project realize its goals given the competences of the research team, the methods suggested, the time frame, resources, and budget?  
  
• Consideration of gender aspects: The relevance of potential sex-specific and gender-related aspects of the proposed projects should be considered and explained throughout the proposal. Please consider WWTF's guidelines regarding sex and gender in research.
• Open Science:Science. doesDoes the Proposalproposed work adhere to theWWTF's principlesOpen ofScience open sciencePolicy?  

Other aspects:

• Career breaks  such as for parental leave, care duties and longer illnesses will be taken into account in the evaluation of the proposals. Please indicate the time periods in the applicants' CV to allow them to be considered.    

Please note thatthat, as the short proposal will be evaluated only by a high-level jury panel,panel who will be asked to act as generalists when evaluating proposals. In contrast,and the full proposal will additionally be evaluated by reviewers with specific expertiseexperts in the topicsproject's ofspecific the proposal. Thus,fields, an appropriate level of scientific detail should be provided at each stage to allow evaluation of the proposal by the respective audience.