TERMS OF REFERENCE Independent evaluation of GDN grants’ output Announcement
The Secretariat of the Global Development Network (GDN) seeks ten evaluators to examine progress in academic quality and policy relevance of the working papers that have resulted from GDN grants. Representation of various social sciences in the grants’ output will be also considered. GDN offers to evaluators $150 per paper reviewed. The evaluation will focus on the outcomes of the Regional Research Competitions (RRCs)—a program of small research grants administered by GDN’s regional network partners in developing and transition economies.1; Global Development Awards and Medals Competition(GDAs) – annual international contest for the best research on development produced by researchers in developing and transition economies; Global Research Projects (GRPs) major projects involving research teams worldwide that address pressing issues of development; Annual Global Development Conference – international forum for exchanging ideas on sustainable development and poverty alleviation. It will begin in November 2005 and should be completed by midDecember 2005 with the submission of the report of findings and recommendations.
Criteria for recruitment
Qualified researchers who have never participated in GDN-sponsored Regional Research Competitions, Global Development Awards and Medals Competition, Global Research Projects and Annual Global Development Conference as applicants for grants, application reviewers, grantees’ advisors, or competition coordinators are eligible to serve as evaluators. The selected evaluators (80% with economics and 20% with political science, sociology specializations) should generally be regarded as objective and reliable and should not directly benefit from GDN’s activities or actions resulting from their recommendations in the evaluation report. Candidates for evaluator positions should meet the following requirements: • • • • Excellent research and writing skills (in English) as evidenced by academic degrees (Ph.D. preferred) and a record of scholarly and policy publications. Experience in conducting reviews of academic papers/research proposals as well as evaluations. Interest in and familiarity with programs on building research capacity in developing/transition economies. Experience working with international organizations and research and policymaking institutes in countries with developing/transition economies.
1
Headquarters of these regional network partners are located in Colombia, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Fiji, Kenya, Pakistan, Russia, and Thailand.
Evaluation process
The evaluators will individually review between 10 and 15 papers covering a wide range of studies in their specific disciplines. To maintain the neutrality of the evaluation process, information on the authors and the year of publication of the papers will be withheld from the evaluators. The evaluation will compare academic quality and policy relevance of the working papers that resulted from the Regional Research Competitions, Global Research Projects, Global Development Awards and Medals Competition, GDN’s Annual Global Development Conference and were submitted in fiscal 2002 (June 30, 2001 – July 1, 2002) and in fiscal 2005 (June 30, 2004 – July 1, 2005). Fiscal 2002 is the first year when these competitions were held under GDN’s sponsorship as an independent organization; three years constitute a sufficient time period for registering progress, if any. It is expected that fifty working papers produced in fiscal 2002 from the grants will be compared with a similar number of papers produced in fiscal 2005 .The papers intended for the review will be randomly selected from the complete lists of papers submitted in 2002 and the procedure will be repeated in respect to the 2005 papers. The evaluators will provide reports on each of the papers reviewed based on the evaluation criteria.
Evaluation criteria
Each paper will be rated on the five-point scale using the following criteria: 1) Scientific merit: a) Appropriateness of the methodology: 1 – not appropriate or outdated; 5 – clearly “best practice.” b) Originality: 1 – mechanical and unoriginal; 5 – innovative and highly original, c) Clarity: 1 – vague and poorly formulated; 5 – clear and precise. 2) Policy relevance: 1 – of little value or interest to policymakers; 5 – can have significant policy implications. 3) Publication as a possible outcome: Estimate of the probability that the paper could be published in a refereed journal or journals: 1 – not publishable even if revised; 5 – ready for publication. If the paper is considered to be publishable, the evaluator will be expected to indicate the most likely refereed journal or journals in which it could be published (“none” is considered a valid response). Interested candidates should send their cover letter, CV and the names of three referees to cfp@gdnet.org . Indicate “Evaluator application” in the subject line of your email message. Deadline for receipt of the applications: 12 November 2005.
2