IMEC Presentation

Document Sample
IMEC Presentation Powered By Docstoc
					           Proposal Writing &
             The Refereeing
                Process

                  Class 4
                 09.12.2004




Seminars                        Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
           The Refereeing
             Process



Seminars                    Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                                     Contents

           Introduction
           Peer review process
                Journals
                Conferences
                Research programmes
                The tasks of a referee
                Reviewing a research paper
                Preparing the referee report & recommendations
                Evaluating a research proposal
           Acting as an editor or program chairperson
           How to become a referee?
           Final words
Seminars                                                  Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                                    Disclaimer


           There is no fixed mechanism for refereeing
           There are simple rules that help transforming a review
           in a constructive document
           In time you will develop your own style of refereeing




Seminars                                                    Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                                        Introduction
           A scientific paper is expected to provide a sufficient
           contribution to the knowledge base of its field
              •    Number of scientific papers and articles (2000): > 600
                  000 (ISI)
              •   About 50% in the fields of science and technology


           The number of papers and articles submitted for
           publication is much larger
              •   refereeing process selects the ones to be published


           Examples of acceptance rates after refereeing:
              •   Journals: ~10-20% (large variance)
              •    Conferences: ~10-50%
              •    Workshops: ~30%-90%
Seminars                                                           Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                                       Introduction
           What is a sufficient contribution?
              •   new result, theoretical or experimental
              •   new insight
              •   novel synthesis of ideas
              •   useful survey
              •   useful tutorial

           What is not a sufficient contribution
              •   badly written
              •   erroneous data


           MPI = Minimum Publishable Increment depends on the
           forum
Seminars                                                     Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                           Peer review process

           Peer reviews are carried out by anonymous referees
           who evaluate the sufficiency of contribution
              •   novelty, significance, correctness, readability


           Refereeing is public service to the scientific community
              •   professional obligation,
              •   carried out on volunteer basis
              •   requires high expertice
              •   helps in improving one’s own expertice
              •   ensures the integrity of science



Seminars                                                            Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                     Peer review process of a journal


                                                submission
           publish
                                 editor                       author
                                                accept
                                                reject
             selection of                       revise
             associate editor
                                            reviews
                                            recommendations

                                associate
                                                              referees
                                 editors

                            selection of referees
                            checking of revised papers



Seminars                                                                 Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
               Peer review process of a conference


                                                 submission
              program
                              program chair                       author
             committee
                                                 accept/
           selection of the                      reject/
           referees                              accept with revisions
           checking of
           revisions
                                          accept/reject/minor revision recommendations


                               referees                    extra referees




Seminars                                                                    Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
            Peer review process of a workshop


                                                  submit
             program
                                  program chair              author
            committee
                                                   accept/
                                                   reject
                            refereeing
                            checking of
                            revisions



           extra referees




Seminars                                                          Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                         Peer review process of a research
                                              programme


                                                   submission
                                    steering
                                                                   proposer
                                   committee

                                                     accept with partial funding/
                                                     reject




                                    referees




           Notice: not representative of all research programmes
Seminars                                                                            Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                     The tasks of a referee

              The reviewer grades a paper based on its novelty,
               significance,correctness, and readability
              In case of substantial conflicts of interest or if the
               paper is out of the field of the reviewer, the editor
               must be informed promptly
              Both positive and negative findings are summarized
               in a referee report
              Confidential part only for the editor/program
               committee: Information that could reveal the identity
               of the reviewer or in minor conflicts of interest
              non-confidential part for the author/program
               committee
              Learn from the other reviews, if they are sent to you
               after the process
Seminars                                                     Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                                    Why do it?

           Several reasons
               Enhance reputation (with editor/prog. committee)
               Expedites processing of your own papers
               Get on editorial board or program committee
               Good practice
                  Increase your own critical appraisal ability
                  Your papers become better
               Sometimes it gets preferential treatment for your
                papers
           … but refereeing means more work!


Seminars                                                    Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                             Consideration

           Most reviews have strict deadlines
           By agreeing to review you take the responsibility of
           doing a thorough job
           If you cannot commit to this, notify the editor asap
           Editors understand you may not have the time, but are
           unforgiving if you commit and do a poor job
           Good editors keep a list …




Seminars                                                  Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                              The right attitude: I can learn
                                                something!
                  Humbleness and an open mind needed; 100%
                   self-confidence can be harmful
                  Early assumptions on the correctness of the
                   paper or the sufficiency
                  of its references should be avoided
               •     an elegantly written paper may have zero actual
                     contribution
               •     a paper with broken English may contain a major
                     new idea
                  The papers recommended for acceptance should
                   have novelty and be correct
               •     If the reviewer can’t check a fact or is unsure, this
                     should be stated in the review report
                  But don’t waste your time on analysing in detail a
                   paper that is never publishable
Seminars                                                             Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004         •     a single crucial error is enough
                                Reviewing a research paper
           The paper to be reviewed is typically accompanied with a
                review form
              •     fill the five point scale questions last
              •     it is most important to write an itemized review report

               Relevance
                   [ ] poor [ ] marginal [ ] fair [ x ] good [ ] excellent
               Originality
                   [ ] poor [ ] marginal [ ] fair [ x ] good [ ] excellent
               Background knowledge of the subject and references
                  [ ] poor [ ] marginal [ ] fair [ x ] good [ ] excellent
               Technical content
                   [ ] poor [ ] marginal [ ] fair [ x ] good [ ] excellent
               Presentation
                    [ ] poor [ ] marginal [ ] fair [ x ] good [ ] excellent
Seminars                                                                  Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
               Reviewing a research paper: analysis
           The analysis of a paper can be done by generating explanations to
                the following eight points (Smith 1990)

               What is the purpose of the paper
               Is the problem clearly stated and have
               the key issues been pointed out?
               Is it clear what has been accomplished?
               Is the paper appropriate for the intended forum?
               If it is not, what could be a better choice?
               Is the goal significant = has the work been worth doing?
               Are the results just trivial variations or extensions of previous
               results?
               Are there any new ideas, or novelties in research
                methodology?


Seminars       Citation analysis using electronic libraries are a big help!
                                                                          Class   4, 09/12/04
  2004
               Reviewing a research paper: analysis
                                           (cont’d)
               Is the method of approach clear and valid?
                   Is there something fundamentally flawed in the approach?
                   Are the assumptions realistic and does that matter?
                   Is the method new? Can it be generalized to other
                        problems?


               Is the actual execution of the research correct?
                   Are the mathematics and statistics correct? Check!
                   Have the simulations been described in sufficient detail for
                       replication?
                   What about the boundary conditions?
                   Do the results make sense?


                  This part may require considerable effort from the
                   reviewer...
Seminars                                                              Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
               Reviewing a research paper: analysis
                                           (cont’d)
               Are the conclusions correct?
                  What are the applications or implications of the
                    results and are the results analysed to an
                    adequate depth?


               Is the presentation satisfactory?
                  Is the paper readable? Is it structured according to
                       the convenstions of scientific publications?


               What did you as the reviewer learn?
                  If you didn’t learn anything, then the paper is not
                       publishable(provided that you understood the
                       paper)

Seminars                                                         Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                            Reviewing a research paper:
                               analyzing the references
           It is researcher’s professional obligation to cite prior
                  work
              •   the manuscript being reviewed includes claims of
                  novelties; regularly citing prior research
              •   the reviewer needs to check the validity of the claims
              •   most efficient to carry out the analysis using electronic
                  libraries


           At minimum:
              •   Check what is found using the key words of the article
              •   Study the references you don’t know beforehand
              •   Check which recent papers cite the same references
              •   Check the references of those recent papers

Seminars                                                              Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                             Review structure

           The actual refereeing form
           General comments on the paper
           Specific comments on the paper
           Confidential note to editor

           General idea: be professional and non-hostile: write the
              review in a style that you would like to receive for
              your paper




Seminars                                                    Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                       The refereeing form


           Forms might look quite different but basically ask the
           same things
           Poorly designed ones just have yes/no answers, good
           ones prompt the referee to elaborate
           Make sure you read and understand it well




Seminars                                                    Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                    Writing the referee report
           No fixed rules exist, the following ones are according to (Smith
           1990)

           Most important: make your opinions clear; avoid ”perhaps” and
           ”maybe”; evaluate the paper, not the author; itemize the
           contributions

            State the recommendation and its justification; the five point scale
           part of the evaluation form is not enough
            Show with a few summarizing sentences that you have
           understood the paper. The editor may use this part and compare
           your summary to those of the other reviewers
            Evaluate the significance and validity of the research goal
            Evaluate the quality of methodology, techniques, accuracy and
           presentation; recommendations for revisions can be written here
            Make a clear recommendation for or against publication with
           justifications
Seminars                                                                Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                      Compiling the recommendations

           Classification of papers (Smith 1990)

           1.   Very significant; includes major results (<1% of all
                papers)
           2.   Interesting work, a good contribution (<10%)
           3.   Minor positive contribution (10-30%)
           4.   Elegant and technically correct, but useless
           5.   Neither elegant nor useful, but not wrong
           6.   Wrong and misleading
           7.   Unreadable, impossible to evaluate

           The acceptance level of the journals and conferences vary;
               1,2, and perhaps 3(-4)
Seminars                                                          Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                                              Outcome

           Usually:
                 Accept the paper as it is
                 Paper requires minor changes
                 Paper requires major changes (with or without a new refereeing
                  process)
                 Reject publication of the paper
           You can only suggest, the choice is not yours
                 Decision is based on at least 3 reviews




Seminars                                                              Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                         Research proposals

           A research proposal is a request for funding submitted to,
               •  MCyT, MECD, GENCAT
               •  European Commission
               •  NIH, NASA, NSF, ESF
               •  other funding organization such as a foundation

           The key difference to reviewing research papers is that
           the reviewers also evaluate the proposers

           Not all organization use peer review as a means for
                selecting proposals for funding


Seminars                                                         Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                           Evaluating research proposals

           The evaluation criteria vary between funding
               organizations

           Key criteria:

           1.   Is the research topic significant?
           2.   Are the goals realistic?
           3.   Has the proposer sufficient expertice and facilities
                to reach the goals?
           4.   Is the requested funding reasonable?


Seminars                                                      Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                                    Ethics of refereeing


           Objectivity
               Judge paper on its own merits
               Remove prejudice
               If you are not able to review it, return it

           Fairness
               Author may have different point of view / methodology / arguments
               Judge from their school of thought not yours

           Speed
                 Be fast, but do not rush. Author deserves a fair hearing




Seminars                                                                     Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                             Ethics of refereeing


           Professional treatment
               Act in the best interest of the author and conference/journal
               Specific rather than vague criticism

           Confidentiality
               Cannot circulate paper
               Cannot use without permission

           Conflict of interest
                 Discuss with editor




Seminars                                                                 Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                              Ethics of refereeing


           Honesty
                 About your expertise and confidence in appraisal
           Courtesy
               Constructive criticism
               Non-inflammatory language
               Suggest improvements




Seminars                                                             Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                            Acting as an editor or program
                                               chairperson

           The editor
              •     maintains correspondence with authors and referees
              •     finds new referees if the ones assigned fail to act in given time
              •     decides on acceptance, rejection or a revision round based on
                    2-4 review statements.
              •     should distribute all review statements to the referees
              •     receives occasional negative feedback

           Review is not a vote! The editor is likely to line himself according to
           the best justified recommendations

           Conference program committees often rely on the numerical
           evaluations, occasionally resorting to vote

Seminars                                                                   Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                  How to become a referee


           • Writing a publication that is cited is the most certain
           way to become a referee

           • Coordination or technical coordination of an EU RTD
           project is a direct road to proposal evaluations

           •Refereeing is very rewarding, helps to keep up-to-date
           and aware of developments in fields adjacent to ones
           own specialty



Seminars                                                        Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                                     Final words




           Good   referee reports are valuable and free of charge
              •     help in improving the paper
              •     help in improving as a researcher
              •     help in improving as a referee

           Refereeing is a learning experience

           Scientific progress rests heavily on peer reviews

Seminars                                                       Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                      PROJECT THESIS EDITOR OFFICE

           Using the articles prepared based on ‘The Six
           Napoleons’, we will set up an editorial office

           Each student will act as an associate editor of one
           article and will review three articles (see handout)

           Each student will peer review his/her three allocated
           articles and will return the referee report (see handout)
           to the assigned associate editor - deadline 17th
           December

           The associate editor will compile the final report and will
           return the final report with the individual referee reports
           to the Editorial Office - deadline 24th December
Seminars             Tutorial group discussion in January!      Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
           Proposal Writing




Seminars                      Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                             Proposal Writing
           In order to carry out research, in general financing is
           required.

           There are several national and international sources of
           funding and the process for obtaining funding is realised
           through proposal submission and review.

           The aim of this section is to INFORM you of the
           proposal process, proposal formats and existing funding
           bodies.

           The homework of this class will be to draft a proposal of
           your DEA/PhD to assist you in your resaerch planning,
           but NOT with a view to preparing a formal proposal in
           the style of those submitted for financing!
Seminars                                                      Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                                     Content

           Why research ?
           Why should this be in a competitive context ?
           Why a research proposal ?
           Getting started
           What makes a good proposal ?
           Writing your proposal
           How to structure your proposal ?
           The review process
           Allocation of funding
           What next ?
           Getting help with your proposal ?
           Quick TIPS for writing a good proposal

Seminars                                                   Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                             Why research ?

           Why is the development of research within universities
           a must ?
               To maintain the quality of teaching programs.
               Provide the basis for undergraduate and graduate
                thesis research projects.
               Universities should be more than degree delivering
                institutions.
               Universities should be the basket for new
                knowledge and developments.




Seminars                                                   Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                  Why should this be in a competitive
                                            context ?

           Do universities have the financial capacity to develop
           and support research activities ?
           Where can the money be found to develop and support
           research ?
           How can the society gets the highest return on
           investment ?




Seminars                                                   Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                             Why a research proposal ?

           Convince others the project you have designed is
           important, worth the effort.
           Convince others that you have the ability to carry out
           the research design and report the findings.
           Generate funds to sustain the research units operation.




Seminars                                                    Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                              Getting started

           Know your subject. The reviewers will look for an up-to-
           date knowledge of the research area.
           Know your funder. Be aware of the priorities and
           interests of the funder you approach, and know that
           funders are unlikely to support the same idea twice.




Seminars                                                    Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                               Getting started

           Consult colleagues.
           Don’t be afraid to discuss your proposal with
           colleagues, or even with the grants officer at the funding
           body.
           Early discussions can ensure that your proposal is
           targeted appropriately.




Seminars                                                      Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                     What makes a good proposal ?

           A well-prepared application should require minimal
           effort on the part of the reviewer.
           Proposals must demonstrate high scientific quality.
           The requested funds must be in proportion to the
           proposed project (cost-effectiveness).




Seminars                                                  Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                     Writing your proposal

           Allow plenty of time to prepare your proposal. A good
           starting point is to write a one-page summary of the
           whole project. This may take a while to get right, but
           once completed it will serve as an invaluable tool for
           writing your full proposal.
           Use your proposal to show the need and then fill the
           gap.




Seminars                                                     Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                    Writing your proposal

           Present your proposal in terms of the aims and
           objectives of the funder and not just your own – make it
           clear how you will be helping them to fund their
           priorities.
           Consider the questions the funder will be asking: Why
           fund you ? Why fund this ? Why now ? ... and make
           sure that the proposal answers them!




Seminars                                                    Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                    Writing your proposal

           Be aware that you will have limited to none
           opportunities to answer queries arising from a reading
           of your proposal.
           Consult the funders website and read clearly the call for
           research proposals as well as the criteria against which
           your proposal will be judged.




Seminars                                                    Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                     Writing your proposal

           Although it is the content that matters, good
           presentation is often crucial to making your proposal
           accessible to reviewers and keeping their interest.
                Use diagrams and tables to add clarity;
                Bullet points and sections can break up text;
                Keep to page, word and font size restrictions; and
                Activate the spell checker while writing.




Seminars                                                     Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                    How to structure your proposal ?

           Check guidelines carefully – failing to meet the funder’s
           format and specifications is one of the most common
           reasons for applications being returned.
           A common proposal structure normally consists of: title,
           abstract, background, aims and objectives,
           methodology, work program, resources, outcomes
           (outputs & dissemination), project management,
           reviewers.




Seminars                                                     Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                    How to structure your proposal ?

           Title: This is the first impression the reader gets.
           The title should be short and clear, and the reviewer
           should be able to understand from the title the intentions
           of the research.
           A catchy title posing a question or including an apparant
           contradiction or acronym may be more easily
           remembered by a reviewer.




Seminars                                                     Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                     How to structure your proposal ?

           Abstract: Should be a concise summary of the WHOLE
           project.
           Use the abstract to identify the need for this research,
           state what you intend to do, and how you intend to do it.
           Do not include unnecessary detail; make each phrase
           count.
           And remember it is the first impression a reviewer gets
           of an applicant’s worth!




Seminars                                                    Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                   How to structure your proposal ?

           Background: This section should be used to put the
           work into context: what has been done before, and how
           will the proposed work add to it ?
           What is the innovative aspect in the research project ?
           Build your case by demonstrating your capability and
           familiarity in the area.




Seminars                                                   Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                    How to structure your proposal ?

           Aims and objectives: The aims should describe what
           you intend to achieve by doing this piece of work.
           Your objectives are the small steps you need to reach in
           order to achieve your aim.
           Aims and objectives should be realistic, consistent, and
           link them to methods, timetable, and outcomes.




Seminars                                                   Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                    How to structure your proposal ?

           Methodology: Methods should be detailed and well
           thought through.
           Explain why you have chosen a particular method.
           Base your explanation on literature references.
           If your own experience of a methodology is limited,
           consider working with collaborators.




Seminars                                                    Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                   How to structure your proposal ?

           Work program: Make use of a Pert chart to illustrate the
           building blocks – work packages – of the research
           project. Be detailed in the description of the content of
           each work package (why, objectives, method(s),
           duration, when are you going to carry out each WP,
           partners involved in the realization, sequence of WP,
           etc.).




Seminars                                                   Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                                                        Example of a Pert chart
                     WATERSHED LEVEL                                                                     IRRIGATION SCHEME LEVEL




    WP 1     Determination of                                                  Management                                Water rights                 WP 4
            rainfall and runoff                                              system (CERES)




            Determination of           Determination topography
             sediment load                   of reservoir
                                                                            Water demand estimation
                                                                                                                                                      WP 5

                                                     Topography
    WP 2


                                                      Land use               Irrigation infrastructure
                                                                                                                                                      WP 6
           Modeling process

                                                         Soil                                                                      Calibration and validation
                                                                                                                                   of the methodology for the
                                                                             Conveyance efficiency                                 actual water management
                                                                                                                                            situation
                                                       Climate


                                                                                                                                    Predicting the values of
                                                                                                                                        the irrigation and
                                                                              Irrigation indicators                                 economic indicators for
                                                                                                                                    alternative scenarios of
            Determination of                 Gross water availability
    WP 3                                                                                                                              water management
             sediment load




                                                                              Economic indicators
             Life expectancy                                                                                                                          WP 7
                 reservoir




           INPUT for decision
                                                                             Simplified management
               making                                                                                                                                 WP 8
                                                                                      system



Seminars                                                                                                                                Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                   How to structure your proposal ?


           Work program: This section contains also a
           diagrammatic work plan, called a Gannt chart.
           The Gannt chart or diagrammatic work plan should
           also be accompanied by a written description.




Seminars                                                Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
           Example of a Gannt chart (= diagrammatic
                                          work plan)
                                      deliverables




Seminars                                     Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                     How to structure your proposal ?


           Resources: The proposal should contain a detailed
           budget.
           The budget asked should be in proportion to the
           volume and complexity of the work activities.
           Be aware that funders vary as to what they are
           prepared to pay in terms of direct project costs, such as
           staff and equipment, and indirect costs, such as
           overheads.
           The funder might request to approve beforehand own
           inputs or inputs from other institutions participating in
           the project.


Seminars                                                      Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                    How to structure your proposal ?


           Outcomes, outputs (+ deliverables) and dissemination:
           In this section one should describe the contribution to
           knowledge and importance for future research, the
           benefits to users, and the broader relevance to
           beneficiaries. Highlight how results will be disseminated
           (publications, conferences, commercial exploitation,
           websites, ....).




Seminars                                                     Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                    How to structure your proposal ?

           Project management: This might not be required for
           small projects.
           However for projects in which several partners are
           involved sufficient information has to be provided on
           how the project will be managed (timescales,
           milestones, communication, criteria to measure
           progress, how crisis situations and conflicts will be
           handled, etc.).




Seminars                                                     Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
           Example of Project Organization chart




Seminars                                Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                    How to structure your proposal ?

           Reviewers: Often requested to suggest name of
           referees.
                Choose people who know you and your work;
                Don’t use reviewers within your own institution;
                Use international reviewers; and
                Be aware that applicant’s own referees write
                 unfavourable reports.




Seminars                                                      Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                        The review process

           Expert assessment: Traditionally applications will be
           assessed by 2 to 3 reviewers selected from the pool of
           experts.
           Reviewers will make an independent assessment of the
           scientific quality of the proposal.
           To be selected for funding at least 2 of the 3 reviewers
           should provide a positive assessment.




Seminars                                                    Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                         The review process

           What are reviewers looking for ?
              High scientific quality;
              Proposals that meet the funder’s priorities or fill a
               knowledge gap;
              Novelty and timeliness;
              Value for money;
              A clear and well thought out approach; and
              An interesting idea – catch their attention!




Seminars                                                       Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                        The review process

           Awards committee: Ranks the submitted proposals on
           the basis of the reviewer’s reports. Their operation and
           procedures can be very variable from funder to funder.
           They might for policy reasons of the funder deviate from
           the reviewer’s assessment.




Seminars                                                    Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                      Allocation of funding

           Position in the ranking is important – it could mean the
           difference between success and failure. Proposals are
           often ranked into the following categories:
                Fund;
                Fundable;
                Invite resubmission (used by some funders); or
                Reject.




Seminars                                                     Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                                     What next ?

           If the project is retained for funding  OK.
           If the project is found fundable  ???
           If invited for resubmission  revise proposal 
           feedback from the reviewers panel.
           If rejected, can be very frustrating  do not give up, try
           to get feedback  remember it is a learning process !




Seminars                                                       Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
           Quick           for writing a good proposal

            Allow  plenty of time;
            Start by writing a summary of your proposed project;
            Demonstrate an up-to-date knowledge of your field;
            Present your proposal in terms of the aims and
             objectives of the funder;
            Avoid jargon – say what you mean in clear, simple
             language;
            Don’t be afraid to state the obvious;




Seminars                                                  Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
           Quick          for writing a good proposal


             Allow a maximum of 4 charts (PERT, GANNT,
              PROJECT ORGANIZATION and BUDGET) - but
              include as many schematic representations of the
              concepts as possible;
             Anticipate questions that may arise, before they arise;
             Ask a colleague to review your proposal; and
             Be enthusiastic about your idea – if you don’t sound
              interested, why should anyone else be ?




Seminars                                                   Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                               Funding Sources
           EUROPE
            European Comission (www.cordis.lu) - 4 year programmes
           with identified priorities and objectives. Currently Framework
           6 - Framework 7 soon begins
            European Science Foundation (www.esf.org)
            National Funding (www.medc.es, www.mcyt.es)


           US
           National Institute of Health (www.nih.gov)
           DARPA (www.darpa.mil)
           NASA
           Department Of Energy
           Department Of Agriculture

Seminars                                                          Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004
                                                            Homework
           Draft a proposal of your DEA/PhD project

           The proposal should include:
                 Title Page
                 Table of Contents
                 Overall and sub-objectives
                 State-of-the-art and novelty of project
                 Workplan - divide into ‘workpackages’, for each
                  WP describe the tasks and sub-tasks, the
                  resources required, risk analysis and
                  contingency plan, as well as deliverables and
                  milestones
                 Pert Chart
                 Gantt Chart
Seminars         Bibliography                                  Class 4, 09/12/04
  2004

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:2
posted:3/25/2012
language:
pages:71