CONFIDENTIAL
Evaluation Form for DNRF-NSFC Joint Research Project within ICT
Name of the reviewer:
Name of the Danish applicant:
Name of the Chinese applicant:
Title of proposed project:
Research quality
Is the research proposed at a high scientific level? Is it original, ambitious and cutting edge
within its field?
5 Outstanding, international top level
4 Excellent, international level
3 Good, national top level
2 Average, national level
1 Poor
Added value of collaboration
Does the collaboration between the Danish and the Chinese group give an added value to
the research proposal? Is the collaboration essential for fulfilling the aims of the research
plan?
5 Outstanding
4 Excellent, which however contains minor elements that could be improved
3 Good, which however contains some elements that should be improved
2 Average, in need of substantial modification or improvement
1 Poor, with severe weaknesses that are intrinsic to the proposed project
Degree of complementarity
Do the involved research groups complement each other in answering the research
questions addressed? Are both groups important to pursue the aims of the research plan?
5 Outstanding
4 Excellent, which however contains minor elements that could be improved
3 Good, which however contains some elements that should be improved
2 Average, in need of substantial modification or improvement
1 Poor, with severe weaknesses that are intrinsic to the proposed project
1
CONFIDENTIAL
Impact
Is it likely that the research proposed will lead to results within the 3 years of funding?
5 Outstanding
4 Excellent, which however contains minor elements that could be improved
3 Good, which however contains some elements that should be improved
2 Average, in need of substantial modification or improvement
1 Poor, with severe weaknesses that are intrinsic to the proposed project
Organisation and management
Does the organisational structure point towards effective management of the project or would
another organisation be recommendable?
5 Outstanding
4 Excellent, which however contains minor elements that could be improved
3 Good, which however contains some elements that should be improved
2 Average, in need of substantial modification or improvement
1 Poor, with severe weaknesses that are intrinsic to the proposed project
Research group
Please comment on the appropriateness of the research competencies within the group.
Does the group suggested comprise the necessary talent and scientific creativity to pursue
the aims of the research plan?
5 Outstanding
4 Excellent, which however contains minor elements that could be improved
3 Good, which however contains some elements that should be improved
2 Average, in need of substantial modification or improvement
1 Poor, with severe weaknesses that are intrinsic to the proposed project
Research training
Is there a clear plan for the supervision of graduate students and post-doc researchers?
Does the project provide an appropriate training environment?
5 Outstanding
4 Excellent, which however contains minor elements that could be improved
3 Good, which however contains some elements that should be improved
2 Average, in need of substantial modification or improvement
1 Poor, with severe weaknesses that are intrinsic to the proposed project
2
CONFIDENTIAL
Overall evaluation of the proposed joint research project
Summary rating:
5 Outstanding proposal
4 Excellent proposal, which however contains minor elements that could be improved
3 Good proposal, which however contains some elements that should be improved
2 Average proposal, in need of substantial modification or improvement
1 Poor proposal, with severe weaknesses that are intrinsic to the proposed project
Date and signature
3