Latest information:

CALL UPDATE: FLASH EVALUATION RESULTS

HORIZON-CL4-2024-RESILIENCE-01-TWO-STAGE, 1 stage

EVALUATION RESULTS

Published: 07.12.2022

Deadline: 07.02.2024

Available budget: EUR 62,000,000

In accordance with General Annex F of the Work Programme, the evaluation of the first-stage proposals was made looking only at the criteria ‘Excellence’ and ‘Impact’. The threshold for both criteria was 4. The overall threshold (applying to the sum of the two individual scores) was set for each topic/type of action with separate call-budget-split at a level that allowed the total requested budget of proposals admitted to stage 2 be as close as possible to 3 times the available budget (and not below 2.5 times the budget):

·     HORIZON-CL4-2024-RESILIENCE-01-35 (Biodegradable polymers for sustainable packaging materials): 9 points

·     HORIZON-CL4-2024-RESILIENCE-01-36 (Advanced biomaterials for the Health Care): 10 points

The results of the evaluation for each topic are as follows:

Summary of observer report:

The Independent observer (IO) finds that the evaluation followed the applicable rules for the call, and that it was competently evaluated in a fair and equitable manner by both the experts and Agency staff. The IO did not observe any event or activity that gave rise to specific concern that might have jeopardised the fairness of the evaluation. The IO understands that the experts were comfortable with the process and the schedule, and many expressed support for the blind evaluation process, which would encourage new participation and reduce unintentional bias.

We recently informed the applicants about the evaluation results for their proposals.

For questions, please contact the Research Enquiry Service.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

GENERALISED FEEDBACK for successful applicants

after STAGE 1

HORIZON-CL4-2024-RESILIENCE-01-TWO-STAGE, 1 stage

In order to best ensure equal treatment, successful stage 1 applicants do not receive the evaluation summary reports (ESRs) for their proposals, but this generalised feedback with information and tips for preparing the full proposal.

Information & tips

Main shortcomings found in the proposals evaluated in Stage 1.

TOPIC HORIZON-CL4-2024-RESILIENCE-35

“ BIODEGRADABLE POLYMERS FOR SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING MATERIALS “

Clarity and Pertinence of Objectives

·     Most of the objectives are measurable and verifiable, with specific key performance indicators (KPIs) outlined. However, some benchmarks and baseline levels are not sufficiently detailed.

·     Realistic achievability of some objectives is not clearly demonstrated.

·     Starting TRLs of some key technologies and the credibility of achieveing target TRL levels are not explained in sufficient detail.

Soundness of methodology

·     The scientific methodology is not always clear and robust. The description of the underlying concepts, models and assumptions is not addressed in sufficient detail.

·     The methodological aspects regarding the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) are not sufficiently detailed to demonstrate technical robustness.

·     In some cases integration of expertise from various disciplines is not fully described.

·      Open science practices are followed but lack some details.

·     The data management and data storage are insufficiently described particularly the data handling, storage and sharing between partners.

·     The role of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) disciplines is not well integrated.

·     Gender dimension considerations are insufficient.

·     In some proposals the risk analysis from an environmental perspective is not convincingly addressed.

·     Collaborations and synergies with existing projects are underdeveloped. Specific actions to enforce this collaborations are not clearly demonstrated.

Impact Assessment

·     The credibility of the pathways to achieve expected outcomes and impacts in some proposals is insufficiently described, particularly how the overall impact would be scaled up. Contributions to wider impacts in terms of achieving increased autonomy in key value chains are not explained in sufficient detail.

·     Potential barriers to outcomes and impacts are not consistently identified and mitigated. Some potential barriers are identified, and adequate measures are proposed, along with some generic mitigation procedures. However, the costs, risks associated with ‘alternative pathways for material sourcing,’ suply chains, R&I-related technological barriers, and economic barriers and their mitigations are not sufficiently described.

·     Negative environmental impacts and their management are often overlooked.

In your stage 2 proposal, you have a chance to address or clarify these issues as full proposals are not anonymous anymore.

Please bear in mind that your full proposal will now be evaluated more in-depth and possibly by a new group of outside experts.

Please make sure that your full proposal is consistent with your short outline proposal. It may NOT differ substantially. The project must stay the same.

TOPIC HORIZON-CL4-2024-RESILIENCE-36

” ADVANCED BIOMATERIALS FOR THE HEALTH CARE “

 Objectives

·     Measurability and verifiability of objectives could be further improved.

·     The State-of-the-Art (SoA) can be further elaborated in full proposals, which will not be anonymous.

·      The progress from start to target Technology Readiness Level should be further elaborated.

Methodology

·     When Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) is proposed, the technical robustness of the AI system should be explained sufficiently.

·     Integration of expertise from different disciplines should be more robust.

·     Implementation of open science practices needs to be more integral in proposed methodologies.

·     Effective contribution of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) should be better addressed.

·     Sufficient evidence should be provided, showing that proposals will build on or seek collaboration with existing projects and develop synergies with other relevant European, national or regional initiatives, funding programmes and platforms.

·     Gender dimension incorporation in research and innovation content requires further elaboration.

Impact

·     Contribution credibility towards expected outcomes and wider impacts requires strengthening.

·     Quantification and estimation of project’s scale and significance of contributions needs further explanation.

·     Identification of potential barriers to expected impacts and outcomes should be elaborated further.

In your stage 2 proposal, you have a chance to address or clarify these issues as full proposals are not anonymous anymore.

Please bear in mind that your full proposal will now be evaluated more in-depth and possibly by a new group of outside experts.

Please make sure that your full proposal is consistent with your short outline proposal. It may NOT differ substantially. The project must stay the same.