Seefeld QIPC Purpose

GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS:

Project reviews are carried out by panels of 2 or more independent experts, normally under the chairmanship of a Commission official. A FET review is not a simple verification that formal project obligations are met but is also a mechanism to provide independent feedback to the project to ensure high quality research. The reviewers are thus invited to provide advice to the project and discuss the work plan for the following year.

In more detail, the objective of the review is to establish:

The degree of achievement of the project objectives as described in Annex I of the contract, as well as the degree of fulfilment of the project work plan and deliverables.
The feasibility of achieving the results aimed at by the project, the eventual application perspectives, as well as the impact of the work carried out on the state of the art in the field.
Any elements which may give rise to reasonable doubts as to the use of reasonable endeavours by the partners to achieve the results aimed at by the project, or that give rise to reasonable doubts as to the reality of the resources that the partners purport to have employed.
Recommendations on courses of action that may be required in order to achieve and/or reorient the project objectives, improve the project's performance and effectiveness, and/or remedy non-performance.

Since FET is long term and exploratory and covers a broad research area, the review format tends to be flexible and is decided by the project officer depending on the particular project. Review sessions can be held for an individual project, or may be collective for a number of projects (e.g. in the case of proactive initiatives). In some cases reviews may even be carried out by e-mail.

Upon completion of the review of a FET Project, each reviewer submits a set of observations to the Commission in the form of a "Reviewer's Report". The reviewers' reports are based on the following information:

Annex I of the contract of the project
The Periodic Progress Report (and the final report in the case of a final review)
The deliverables due within the previous reporting period (usually 12 months), any other relevant information provided by the partners, and any additional information requested by the Commission
The findings of the previous review session, if any, and
The presentations and discussion at the review meeting (not applicable for reviews by mail).

The reviewers' reports should contain sufficient information to allow the project Officer to assess progress and make constructive recommendations to the Project, as well as to take the steps necessary to address any major problems that may have arisen. An individual reviewer's report is for "EC use only" and will not be disclosed without the express prior consent of the reviewer.

The project Officer with the experts then produce the Review Panel Report, which is signed and dated by the experts, and is communicated to the project within four weeks of the review meeting. A recommended structure for this Report is given in Annex.

On the basis of the Review Panel Report the Commission will inform the project coordinator of its decision:

to acknowledge the successful completion of the project or,
to allow the project to continue without modification or with minor modifications after approval of the deliverables or,
to consider that the project can only continue with major modifications or,
to initiate the termination of the contract or the participation of one or more of the partners.

In case that a project is subject to severe remedial action (termination or major modifications), the project Officer may ask the experts to comment on subsequent correspondence between the Commission and the project.

ANNEX Structure of the Review Panel Report

1	General
	1.1	Overall appraisal of the status of the project
	1.2	Relationship and relevance of the work carried out and planned to the state-of-the-art in the field
	1.3	Status and overall assessment of deliverables and publications
	1.4	Management aspects and partners' cooperation (including quality of co-operation, exchange of data, meetings, communication between partners or between partners and others, changes in partnership, etc.)
	1.5	Information Dissemination
	1.6	Analysis of major problems, if any
2	Tasks and Activities
	2.1	Performance of technical tasks in comparison with that forecast in Annex I and/or in previous review panel reports; identification of any delays or doubts as to the reality of the resources employed
	2.2	Are the goals of the Project still feasible and relevant?
	2.3	Scientific evaluation of the work accomplished
3	Application Perspectives
	3.1	Relevance to scientific and long-term industrial objectives
	3.2	Potential for use of results in other research or exploitation in industry
4	Recommendations: A set of recommendations describing the main steps to be undertaken in order to better pursue the goals of the Project, or, if necessary, to modify the goals. The recommendations may cover scientific as well as organisational and managerial aspects, including possible modifications to Annex I.
5	Points of Special Interest: Reviewers are strongly encouraged to highlight points of special interest, for example: major scientific results achieved, novel approaches identified, important changes in direction of research or new industrial perspectives due to new insight, broader initiatives/actions that would be relevant, etc).