Laws and regulations
      

Pursuant to Article 28 of the Decision establishing the Public Research Agency of the Republic of Slovenia (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, nos. 123/03 and 105/10), the Scientific Council of the Slovenian Research Agency adopted the

Methodology for evaluating applications to calls for proposals
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. GENERAL

B. RESEARCH PROJECTS

  1. Entry conditions
  2. Phase one evaluation procedure
  3. Phase one reviewers’evaluation
  4. Reviewers’ evaluation and phase two application selection procedure

C. MENTORS OF YOUNG RESEARCHERS

  1. Fields and entry conditions

D. RESEARCH EQUIPMENT

  1. Evaluation elements

E. SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS

  1. Evaluation elements
  2. Evaluation procedure
  3. Classification of applications by category and the norms for calculating grants

F. PROMINENT FOREIGN RESEARCHERS

  1. Evaluation elements
  2. Evaluation procedure
  3. Period
  4. Eligible cost

G. INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE AND DATABASES

  1. Evaluation element
  2. Classification of applications by group and proposal for a financially evaluated application list

H. INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION

  1. Evaluation element

I. RESEARCH PROGRAMMES

  1. General
  2. Evaluation
  3. Evaluation elements

J. INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMMES

  1. General
  2. Forms
  3. Processing procedure

K. CENTRAL SPECIALISED INFORMATION CENTRES

  1. Evaluation elements

L. PUBLISHING THE METODOLOGY
 

A. GENERAL

The Methodology for evaluating applications for (co)financing research (hereinafter: the Methodology) is based on the provisions of the Research and Development Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, nos. 22/06 – official consolidated text, 61/06-Zdru-1 and -112/07) and on the provisions of the Rules of procedure for (co)financing, assessing and monitoring implementation of research activities (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 4/11) (hereinafter: Rules of Procedure).
The Methodology’s aim is to specify in detail the evaluation yardsticks and indicators, and lay down in greater detail the evaluation criteria and procedure for

  1. applications concerning research projects, selection of mentors of young researchers, research equipment, scientific meetings, (co)financing prominent foreign researchers, (co)financing purchase of foreign scientific literature and databases, and (co)financing international scientific cooperation (hereinafter: the Research);
  2. reports on research and infrastructure programmes.

The Agency will publish in the SICRIS system data on the researcher stated by the applicant in the application and relating to his or her exceptional scientific achievements, socioeconomic and culturally relevant results and important substantive elements.

The quantitative evaluation (A score) comprises of four evaluation elements of which three measure the researcher’s research excellence, namely published research papers with the emphasis on their quality and the norm number of pure citations (A1, A2 and A4scores), while the fourth element (A3 score) measures the researcher’s performance in obtaining project funding other than that from the Agency.

Limit values are:

A1limit = 1500

A2limit = 600

A3limit = 15 FTE of the price category of the C programme from the preceding year

A4 = 1/2(A"/A1 + A'/A1) + 1/20(NC/NČ),

where NČ is the number of scientific papers published in the last ten years and NC the number of norm citations of those papers in the last ten years. The limit value of the NC/NČ quotient equals 20. The first part of the formula equals zero for those researchers with A' and A" below 50. The A1 points are used for A1 in the first part of the formula.

The data for calculation of the A3 score will be obtained directly from research organisations for those researchers who were members of programme groups in December of the preceding year. The research organisations will enter data in the ARRS-RPROG-VPETOST-20xx form and guarantee data accuracy by signature of competent persons. The Agency will obtain data upon the call for proposals for the researchers not being members of a programme group. The designation “20xx” in names of forms specified in the methodology represent the year of the form's publication.

The score related to the conditions for a manager of basic and applicative projects in the rules on:

  1. research titles
  2. operation of standing and working bodies for the Research

and for all other calls for proposals for which it has not been set out in subsequent sections herein shall equal as follows for all disciplines: A1+A2+A3+A4= 1.
 

B. RESEARCH PROJECTS

I. Entry conditions

The entry conditions are laid down pursuant to the Rules of Procedure. The Methodology applies quantitative scores as entry conditions.

The A1, A2, A3 and A4 quantitative scores are determined on the basis of elements set out in the Rules of Procedure.

The applicant can state in exceptional research achievements in Item 15 of the application for the project manager any bibliographical units with a larger number of citations with no full bibliographical record in the WoS, entered in the form: ARRS-ZV-JR-Prijava-20xx-I (hereinafter: the Phase One Application).

If the researchers’ Ai score exceeds the limit value, the applicant can state this fact in exceptional research achievements in Item 15 of the Phase One Application.

The Agency will assess candidates for project managers in the discipline and the field that the applicant stated in Item 7 of the Phase One Application.

The SCA determines the limit value of the sum A1+A2+A3+A4 which the project managers must have for the application for each discipline separately - the values for 2011 are:

Larger basic project:

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 11 – natural and technical sciences

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 10; medical sciences and biotechnology

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 6; social sciences

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 5; humanities

Basic project and larger applicative project:

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 5.5; natural sciences

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 5.0; technical sciences

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 2.5; medical sciences, pharmaceutical sciences and geology

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 3.5; biotechnology and biology

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 2.0; social sciences and clinical medicine

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 2.5; humanities

Applicative project (including basic project if no more than 10 years have passed since the project manager received the doctoral degree):

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 3.5; natural sciences

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 4.0; technical sciences

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 1.5; medical sciences, pharmaceutical sciences and geology

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 2.5; biotechnology and biology

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 1.5; social sciences

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 2.0; humanities

Applicative project if no more than 10 years have passed since the project manager received the doctoral degree:

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 3.0; natural sciences

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 3.0; technical sciences

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 1.0; medical sciences, pharmaceutical sciences and geology

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 2.0; biotechnology and biology

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 1.0; social sciences

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 1.5; humanities

A third of project team members for basic and applicative projects for all fields must meet the condition: A1+A2+A3+A4 = 1

(Basic and applicative) project managers can also apply with a lower overall score A1+A2+A3+A4 if they prove their excellence with achievements within A" (A">0).

All project managers apart from postdoctoral projects shall meet the condition of A'>0. An additional condition for managers of large basic projects is A">0.

Applicative project managers shall meet the condition of A3>0.1.

The condition specified in the previous paragraph hereunder shall apply neither to postdoctoral projects nor to applicative project managers obtaining a doctoral degree less than 10 years ago.

Funding of applicative research shall be set in the budget by discipline. The share of funding earmarked for interdisciplinary research by discipline shall be set by a call for proposals. An application for interdisciplinary research shall be made to the underlying discipline and field and state the additional discipline and field included in the entered interdisciplinary research project.

The Agency shall publish annually in advance the information on the capacity of the fields as a broken-down list of projects in progress and projects due for completion in the following year.

II. Phase one evaluation procedure

The reviewers evaluate entries based on the application on the ARRS-JR-Prijava-20xx-I form. Each application is evaluated by at least two foreign reviewers.

The reviewers evaluate individual evaluation elements by filling in the evaluation sheets:

  • Form: ARRS-RPROJ-OL-TUJ-…/20xx).

Numerical scores by element (yardsticks and indicators) are entered on the evaluation sheet.

The working body divides applications for evaluation into groups of not more than 10 applications. If the proposals for a research field number more than 10, the working body will divide them into subfields or integrated substantive sets evaluated by the same reviewers.

Members of the scientific council of the discipline (SCD) examine project applications and if they find an entry classified into an inappropriate field, they will propose to the working body to reclassify it to an appropriate field with the grounds taking into account primarily the OECD (SCI and SSCI) fields of publications of the project manager and the contents of the application. If a member of the SCD is at the same time an applicant, another researcher put forward by the chair of the SCD shall propose any reclassification.

When appointing reviewers for interdisciplinary research, the working body shall take into account that the reviewers cover the main fields of the interdisciplinary research related to the project’s contents specified in Item 7.2 of the Phase One Application.

III. Phase one reviewers’ evaluation

The reviewers’ evaluations of the project manager comprise five individual scores based on the criteria, yardsticks and indicators specified in Table B below. Unless the table specifies otherwise, then:

  • the project manager is evaluated in phase one
  • the entire project team is evaluated in phase two
  • only the researcher is evaluated in postdoctoral projects

The reviewers’ evaluations of the project manager (B evaluation) comprise five individual scores (B1+B2+B3+B4+B5) based on the criteria specified in Table B below.

The B evaluation is obtained by the sum of individual scores with the maximum score of 25:

B = B1+B2+B3+B4+B5

The B evaluation uses the average score of reviewers.

In humanities, the reviewer also takes into account the relevant achievements of the project manager in the segment of culture in the B4 evaluation.

No project with the score B = B1 + B2 + B3 + B4 + B5 of less than 15 shall enter phase two of the call for proposals. The reviewers are informed on the threshold when they receive the application.

The reviewers can use the indicators of quantitative research activity of a project team manager as assistance in their evaluation (scores: A1, ratios A"/A1 and A'/A1, A2 , A3 and A4).

If the evaluation has several descriptions, as many indicators as possible shall be met. As many indicators as possible shall be met for Criterion 1 (research excellence of the researcher or the research team) whereas only the description printed in bold shall apply to humanities. If the met condition is related to A' or A", the score shall not be below the minimum.

Table B: Evaluating applications of research projects in evaluation phases one and two

Evaluation elements
Criteria		 Criterion Basic and applicative projects
Indicators and yardsticks		 Points Postdoctoral projects
Indicators and yardsticks		 Points Source
Research excellence of the researcher or the research team B1 1.4. Exceptional achievements in publications
1.5. Exceptional achievements in citations
1.6. Status excellence
1.7. Lectures on international conferences abroad
1.8. Participation in international projects or their parts (excluding bilateral ones)		 0 – 5 1.4. Exceptional achievements in publications
1.5. Exceptional achievements in citations
1.6. Status excellence
 0 – 5 ARRS- ZV-JR-Prijava-20xx -I, Item 15, add. Item 16.

ARRS- ZV-JR-Prijava-20xx -II, Item 8
Global top/vital importance to Slovenia, discovery 4 - 5 Global top/vital importance to Slovenia, discovery 4 - 5
A" of the manager over 100 A" over 50
An exceptional number of citations, accounting for age and the field of publications A' over 100
A winner of an international scientific award or a national award in the Republic of Slovenia A winner of an international young scientists’ award
A key note speaker at international conferences abroad Proven international impact of the research work
Proven participation as a manager/responsible head of international projects or their parts (not bilateral)
Proven membership in editorial committees of international journals or an editor by invitation in foreign journals
In contact with the global top/high national importance 3 - 4 In contact with the global top/high national importance 3 - 4
A" of the manager over 50 A' over 50
A" of the manager over 100 Several publications in a journal with IF
Proven lectures by invitation at international conferences An above-average number of citations, accounting for age and the field of research
A member of organisational committees of international conferences A winner of a national young scientists’ award
Proven participation as a project manager or responsible scientist in international projects (not bilateral)
An above-average number of citations, accounting for age and the field of publications
International and national significance 2 - 3 International and national significance 2 - 3
A' of the manager over 50 Publication in a journal with IF
Several publications in journals with IF An average number of citations, accounting for age and the field of publications
Several publications in journals indexed in bibliographical databases (social sciences) A publication in journals indexed in bibliographical databases (social sciences)
Proven lectures at international conferences
Proven successful project management
An average number of citations, accounting for age and the field of publications
Average/less significant 1 -2 Average/less significant 1 -2
A publication in journals indexed in bibliographical databases (social sciences) A publication in a journal with IF
A publication in journals with IF A publication in journals indexed in bibliographical databases (social sciences)
Has citations
Not meeting the basic standards 0 Not meeting the basic standards 0
The project manager has no publications in journals with IF or journals indexed in bibliographical databases (social sciences) Identical to basic projects
Socioeconomic or cultural relevance of research results of the researcher or the group of researchers B2 2.2. Proven teaching activities in higher education;
2.3. Proven mentorship in graduation, master’s and doctoral theses
2.4. Written popular science articles in magazines distributed to a wider audience, presence in the media with comments and critical reflections and (co)organisation of public events with a contribution to popularisation of science
2.5. Proven relevant achievements in culture (the indicator applies to humanities)
2.6. Proven membership in committees significant to the field
2.7. Proven relations with businesses or publicly-provided services
2.8. (Co)author of patents, standards, licences, new products, technologies and technological solutions and innovations
2.9. (Co)founder of a spinoff company		 0 - 5 2.4. Written popular science articles in magazines distributed to a wider audience, presence in the media with comments and critical reflections and (co)organisation of public events with a contribution to popularisation of science
2.5. Proven relevant achievements in culture (the indicator applies to humanities)
2.6. Proven membership in committees significant to the field
2.7. Proven relations with businesses or publicly-provided services
2.8. (Co)author of patents, standards, licences, new products, technologies and technological solutions and innovations
2.9. (Co)founder of a spinoff company
2.13. Hosting researchers		 0 - 5 ARRS- ZV-JR-Prijava-20xx -I, Item 16.
ARRS- ZV-JR-Prijava-20xx -II, Item 9.1
Phase one of the project evaluation State-of-the-art project 4 - 5 State-of-the-art project 4 - 5
Quality project 2 - 4 Quality project 2 - 4
Lower quality project 0 - 2 Lower quality project 0 - 2
Phase two of evaluation Exceptionally relevant achievements
The manager has proven achievements in most or all of the specified categories Minimum deficiencies		 5 Exceptionally relevant achievements 5
Highly relevant achievements
The manager has proven achievements in a substantial part of the specified categories Gaps appear in certain categories of achievements		 4 Highly relevant achievements 4
Relevant achievements
The manager has proven achievements in the specified categories but significant gaps noticeable		 3 Relevant achievements 3
Less relevant achievements
Serious deficiencies in the manager’s proven results evident		 2 Less relevant achievements 2
Irrelevant achievements
Noticeable sporadic proving of the manager’s achievements		 1 Irrelevant achievements 1
The manager does not prove meeting of the majority of the specified criteria 0 The researcher does not prove meeting of the majority of the specified criteria 0
R&D quality of the application B3 3.1. Scientific significance of the topic
3.2. Current nature of the initial hypothesis and methodological adequacy or design of research (in humanities)
3.3. Clear idea and quality of objectives
3.4. Original (new) expected results
3.5. Quality and efficiency of the selected scientific research methodology		 0 – 5 3.1. Scientific significance of the topic
3.2. Current nature of the initial hypothesis and methodological adequacy or design of research (in humanities)
3.3. Clear idea and quality of objectives
3.4. Original (new) expected results
3.5. Quality and efficiency of the selected scientific research methodology		 0 – 5 ARRS- ZV-JR-Prijava-20xx -I, Item 19.
ARRS- ZV-JR-Prijava-20xx -II, Item 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17.1
Phase one of the project evaluation State-of-the-art project 4 - 5 State-of-the-art project 4 - 5
Quality project 2 - 4 Quality project 2 - 4
Lower quality project 0 - 2 Lower quality project 0 - 2
Phase two of the project evaluation
 State-of-the-art project 4 - 5 State-of-the-art project 4 - 5
Research which (at the global level) shows novelties in approach, introduces new techniques or which can be expected to lead to new discoveries
Research which (at the global level) points to new concepts
Research which (at the global level) may lead to major novelties or new practice in application
Quality project 3 - 4 Quality project 3 - 4
Research which may have an important contribution to science internationally
Research which can be expected to contribute important new knowledge, ideas and techniques and which will probably have a lasting impact internationally, but which does not develop new concepts
Research conducted in cooperation with researchers abroad
Average project 2 - 3 Average project 2 - 3
Research which is expected to lead to useful knowledge in the field but no major impact on the field's development is expected
Research showing gradual progress in small steps which could lead to new knowledge, approaches and techniques within the scope of existing ones
Research with partial applicative nature showing the possibility for a significant impact on the direction and introduction of new practices in Slovenia
Lower quality project 1
 1 - 2 Lower quality project 1 1 - 2
Useful and beneficial work but probably no major impact on its field
Research important domestically
Research showing a minor impact on the direction of the field and the introduction of new practices
Lower quality project 0 - 1 Lower quality project 0 - 1
Research the quality and expected impact of which are below the criteria specified in items above
Relevance and potential impact of the application’s results B4 4.1. Direct significance for businesses and publicly-provided services (a company, industry, several industries, social infrastructure, civil service, incorporation of new enterprises, cultural development and preservation of national identity, protection of natural and cultural heritage, etc.)
4.2. Indirect importance to the society (promotion of the country, access to foreign know-how, inclusion in the international labour division, education of human resources, etc.)
4.3. Importance for the development of the discipline or the field
4.4. Alignment with the policy of national development, scientific research, discipline, field and the prescribed topics
4.5. Suitability of measures for application and dissemination of results
4.6. Alignment of the proposal contents with prescribed topics
4.7. Share of funding from other sources		 0 – 5 4.1. Direct significance for businesses and publicly-provided services (a company, industry, several industries, social infrastructure, civil service, incorporation of new enterprises, cultural development and preservation of national identity, protection of natural and cultural heritage, etc.)
4.2. Indirect importance to the society (promotion of the country, access to foreign know-how, inclusion in the international labour division, education of human resources, etc.)
4.3. Importance for the development of the discipline or the field
4.4. Alignment with the policy of national development, scientific research, discipline, field and the prescribed topics
4.5. Suitability of measures for application and dissemination of results
4.6. Alignment of the proposal contents with prescribed topics
4.7. Share of funding from other sources		 0 – 5 ARRS- ZV-JR-Prijava-20xx -I, Item 19.
ARRS- ZV-JR-Prijava-20xx -II, Item 17.2, 17.3
Phase one of evaluation State-of-the-art project 4 - 5 State-of-the-art project 4 - 5
Quality project 2 - 4 Quality project 2 - 4
Lower quality project 0 - 2 Lower quality project 0 - 2
Phase two of evaluation
 State-of-the-art project 4 - 5 State-of-the-art project 4 - 5
The project proposal includes research which is highly probable to have a crucial impact on a certain discipline or field internationally
Quality project 3 - 4 Quality project 3 - 4
It is evident from the project proposal that a significant international impact can be expected
Average project 2 - 3 Average project 2 - 3
Although the project proposal is interesting and shows the possibility for an international impact of the research, the project proposal includes deficiencies or ambiguities
Lower quality project 1
 1 - 2 Lower quality project 1 1 - 2
It is expected that the project results will only be important for knowledge domestically The proposal contains deficiencies
Lower quality project 0 - 1 Lower quality project 0 - 1
It is evident from the project proposal that a negligible domestic or international impact can be expected
Lower quality project 0 Lower quality project 0
No conclusion can be drawn from the project proposal about the relevance and impact of the proposed research
Feasibility of the proposal B5 5.1. Qualifications of the manager (proven by completed projects and mentorships)
5.2. An appropriate work plan
5.3. Adequacy of the project’s feasibility, scope and duration
5.4. Appropriate composition of the team of researchers (interdisciplinary and interinstitutional)
5.5. Availability of premises and equipment
5.6. Inclusion in programmes and projects
5.7. Alignment of the proposed scope of activities with the planned budget and providing for rational use of funds		 0 - 5 5.2. An appropriate work plan
5.3. Adequacy of the project’s feasibility, scope and duration
5.5. Availability of premises and equipment
5.6. Inclusion in programmes and projects
5.7. Alignment of the proposed scope of activities with the planned budget and providing for rational use of funds		 0 - 5 ARRS- ZV-JR-Prijava-20xx -I, Item 19.
ARRS- ZV-JR-Prijava-20xx -II, Item 2, 3, 4, 5, 9.2, 13, 14, 15, 16
Phase one of evaluation State-of-the-art project 4 - 5 State-of-the-art project 4 - 5
Quality project 2 - 4 Quality project 2 - 4
Lower quality project 0 - 2 Lower quality project 0 - 2
Phase two of evaluation State-of-the-art project
The project proposal showing an optimal alignment of most or all listed categories; minimum discrepancies		 4-5 State-of-the-art project
The project proposal showing an optimal alignment of most or all listed categories; minimum discrepancies		 4-5
Quality project
Noticeable gaps in individual categories of the project proposal but the proposal feasible all the same		 2-4 Quality project
Noticeable gaps in individual categories of the project proposal but the proposal feasible all the same		 2-4
Lower quality project
Gaps in a number of listed categories of the project proposal; a low chance of success		 0-2 Lower quality project
Gaps in a number of listed categories of the project proposal; a low chance of success		 0-2

IV. The reviewers’ evaluation and phase two of the application selection

The Agency calls upon the applicants included in phase two of the project selection (A category) to submit the supplemented application entering the research project by using the form ARRS-ZV-JR-Prijava-20xx-II (hereinafter: the Phase Two Application).

The applications are evaluated by three foreign reviewers. In interdisciplinary research, two reviewers come from the underlying discipline and field and one reviewer from the additional discipline and field included in the entered interdisciplinary research project. Each reviewer evaluates several projects and substantiates the evaluations. The average score given by the three reviewers is taken into account in the evaluation procedure.

The reviewer’s B evaluation consists of the same elements as in the first phase, except that the project’s contents are supplemented and extended, namely:

B = B1+B2+B3+B4+B5

The project evaluation B comprises the average score given by the three reviewers.

The panel may exclude one evaluation and apply the average score given by the remaining two reviewers.

The minimum average score (threshold) to be achieved by a research project is B1+ B2 + B3 + B4 +B5 = 15. The reviewers are informed on the threshold when they receive the application.

At least 10% of postdoctoral projects shall be selected within each discipline. At least 50% of technical sciences projects, at least 35% of biotechnology projects, at least 25% of medical sciences and social sciences projects, at least 20% of natural sciences projects and at least 15% of humanities projects shall be applicative ones. At least 25% of the selected projects shall have younger researchers in charge (up to 10 active years after obtaining a doctoral degree).

Each project shall have the small project (€ 50,000) field filled in. Such projects are usually assigned to applications near the bottom of the approved applications list.

Panel members include the selected foreign reviewers not evaluating applications in the relevant call for proposals.
 

C. MENTORS OF YOUNG RESEARCHERS

I.  Fields and entry conditions

Members of the SCD examine mentor applications and if they find an entry classified into an inappropriate field, they will propose to the working body to reclassify it to an appropriate field with the grounds taking into account primarily the OECD (SCI and SSCI) fields of publications of the mentor candidate and the contents of the application. If a member of the SCD is at the same time a mentor candidate, another researcher put forward by the chair of the SCD shall propose any reclassification.

The system management subfield is treated as a research field on account of its peculiarities. The expert body shall pay special attention to that field.

The SCA has determined the limit value of the sum A1+A2+A3+A4 which the mentor candidates shall have in the application for each field:

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 5.5; natural sciences

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 5.0; technical sciences

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 2.5; medical sciences, pharmaceutical sciences and geology

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 3.5; biotechnology and biology

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 2.0; social sciences and clinical medicine

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 2.5; humanities

and A1+A2+A4 = 1 for all disciplines

The following limit values apply to younger mentors:

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 3.0; natural sciences

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 3.0; technical sciences

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 1.0; medical sciences, pharmaceutical sciences and geology

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 2.0; biotechnology and biology

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 1.0; social sciences

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 1.5; humanities

and A1+A2+A4 = 0.5 for all disciplines

The Agency calculates the score of the entered candidates (A1+A2+A3+A4).

Mentors in centres of excellence shall meet the conditions specified in the second and the third paragraph.

At least five mentor appointments shall be granted to centres of excellence.
 

D. RESEARCH EQUIPMENT

I. Evaluation elements

The expert body shall score applications for research equipment based on the evaluation elements set out below.

Table D: Evaluation of applications for co-financing acquisition of research equipment

EVALUATION ELEMENT Criterion Indicator Maximum
number of points
8+4 17
Quality of the application regarding support 8 11
Approved period of financing of the research or infrastructure programme 8.7 6
6 years 6
5 years 6
4 years 3
3 years 0
New research programmes 3
Infrastructure programmes 3
Purchase amount for the equipment 8.8 5
Natural sciences:
140,000 and more 5
120,000 – 139,999 4
80,000 – 119,999 3
50,000 – 79,999 1
Technical sciences, medical sciences and biotechnology:
75,000 and more 5
70,000 – 74,999 4
60,000 – 69,999 3
50,000 – 59,999 1
Social sciences and humanities:
40,000 and more 5
35,000 – 39,999 4
25,000 – 34,999 3
15,000 – 24,999 1
Relevance and potential impact of the application  4 6
Share of funding from other sources  4.7 6
Share of own funds 20-29% 1
Share of own funds 30-39% 2
Share of own funds 40-49% 3
Share of own funds 50-59% 4
Share of own funds 60-69% 5
Share of own funds 70% or more 6

 
E. SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS

I. Evaluation elements

The scores are determined based on the criteria specified in Table D. The Agency will enter the scores for indicators 1.1, 1.2, 4.7, 4.9 and 4.10 on special forms.

TABLE E: Evaluating applications for scientific meetings

EVALUATION ELEMENT CRITERION, INDICATOR POINTS SOURCE
Research excellence of the researcher or the research team 1 40  
Sicris score (A1) 1.1 5 Agency
Norm number of pure citations (A2) 1.2 5 Agency
Exceptional achievements in publications 1.4 15 ARRS ZS 01 20xx, Item 17.1
High on average   15
Medium on average   10
Low on average   5
Exceptional achievements in citations 1.5 15 ARRS ZS 01 20xx, Item 17.1
High on average   15
Medium on average   10
Low on average   5
Relevance and potential impact of the application 4 60  
Importance for the development of the discipline or the field 4.3 20 ARRS-ZS-01—20xx, Item 18.1
Highly substantial and current topics; high importance   12-20
Medium substantial and current topics; medium importance   6 – 11
Less substantial and current topics; lower importance   0 – 5
Share of funding from other sources 4.7 10 ARRS-ZS-01-20xx, Item 19
Foreign sources   10
Domestic sources   5
Share of foreign participants at a scientific meeting 4.9 10 ARRS-ZS-01-20xx, Item 6
Planned participation of 50% or more of speakers   10
Planned participation of 21-49% of speakers    5
Planned participation of 10-20% of speakers    3
Planned participation of less than 10% of speakers    0
Periodical nature of the scientific meeting (European or global character) 4.10  5 ARRS-ZS-01-20xx, Item 7
A periodical meeting moving from country to country or organised by a renowned international organisation    5
A periodical meeting taking place in Slovenia    3
The expected level of scientific and expert circles taking notice 4.11 10 ARRS-ZS-01-20xx, Item 18.2 and 15
high   7-10
medium   4-6
small   0-3
Combination of several scientific disciplines 4.12 5 ARRS-ZS-01-20xx, Item 13
Feasibility of the proposal 5 15  
Alignment of the proposed scope of activities with the planned budget and providing for rational use of funds 5.7 15 ARRS-ZS-01-20xx, Item 19
Highly rational use   11-15
Realistic use   6-10
No rational use provided for   0-5

II. Evaluation procedure

Before the evaluation, the working body may classify the application to a discipline other than stated in the application if it deems such classification more appropriate.

The reviewer evaluates the application on the basis of the application form: ARRS-ZS-01-20xx. The reviewers evaluate individual evaluation elements by filling in the evaluation sheet; form: ARRS-ZS-02-20xx, containing numerical scores by element.

III. Classification of applications by category and the norms for calculating grants

After the scoring, the expert body determines four categories: I, II, III and IV. The meetings classified into the first three categories are co-financed. The meetings classified into the fourth category are not co-financed. A meeting is classified into a category based on the sum of scores, separately by discipline.

NORMS FOR CALCULATING GRANTS (DZS11*)

The calculation of funds for co-financing the cost of organisation of scientific meetings shall take into account the number of participants (D1), the number of speakers (D2), the number of days (D3), the number of foreign invited lecturers (D4), and the administration depending on the number of speakers (D5) as well as the following financially evaluated elements:

COST TYPE €
Administering the programming and organisational committee (D5)
Up to 30 speakers
 625
Up to 100 speakers
 1041
Over 100 speakers
 1458
Printing and sending invitations and letters, and printing abstracts in book or electronic form, and preparations (D6) 5
Amount added per speaker (D7) 14
Hall rental (1 day, 1 participant) (D8) 3
Accommodation of invited lecturers (1 person, 1 day) (D9) 104

Grants are calculated as follows:

DZS = (D1 * D6) + (D2 * D7) + (D1 * D3 * D8) + (D4 * D3 * D9) + D5

  1. category I receives 100% of the calculated grant
  2. category II receives 75% of the calculated grant
  3. The percentage for Category III is set by a calculation
  4. Category IV receives no co-financing

The percentages depend on the amount of funding earmarked for the programme. The percentage is set annually with regard to the earmarked funds.

An abstract of presentations shall be printed before the meeting.

The co-financing programme can only include meetings for which the applicants submit sufficient data (e.g. names and topics or envisaged programmes of invited lecturers) and state exact objectives of the scientific meeting.

The cost of preparations taking place one year before the meeting shall be covered for large scientific meetings (over 350 participants).

The Agency shall co-finance the entire cost for a maximum of 3 days.

The Agency shall co-finance all accommodation costs to a maximum of 10 invited foreign lecturers or 5% of active participants (invited foreign lecturers and speakers) at a meeting.

The Agency co-finances meetings for which at least 10 or 20 speakers are scheduled for daily, and two or more day meetings, respectively.

The Agency shall co-finance the additional amount per speaker for a maximum of 100 speakers.

If the calculated grant exceeds the amount applied for, the amount applied for shall be used.
 

F. PROMINENT FOREIGN RESEARCHERS

I. Evaluation elements

The total score of an application for co-financing prominent foreign researchers (hereinafter: the application) consists of individual scores given by the reviewers.

The evaluation elements for the reviewers’ evaluation are specified in Table F. Table F: Evaluating prominent foreign researchers

Table F: Evaluating prominent foreign researchers

EVALUATION ELEMENT Criterion
Indicator		 Points Source
1+4 40 ARRS-TURAZ-01-20xx
Research excellence of the researcher or the research team 1 30  
Status excellence 1.6 10  
Nobel and Fields prize (immediate inclusion in financing)   10 Item 9
Other prestigious awards   up to 10
The prize fund per award winner exceeding € 500,000   8-10 Item 9
The prize fund per award winner of € 100,000-500,000   5-7 Item 9
The prize fund per award winner of € 20,000-100,000   3-4 Item 9
The prize fund per award winner of up to € 20,000   1-2 Item 9
Membership in renowned academies of science and arts   3 Item 10
Full professor or professor Emeritus   2 Item 11
Editor in chief or associate editor of an international scientific journal with the impact factor in the upper quarter of journals in the field or a scientific editor of a book series at a renowned international publishing company   4 Item 12
Editor in chief or associate editor of an international scientific journal with a lower impact factor and for humanities journals indexed by A&HCI or another international bibliographical database of humanities   2 Item 12
A member of the editorial board or advisory board of an international scientific journal with the impact factor in the upper quarter of journals in the field or a member of the editorial board or advisory board of a book series at a renowned international publishing company   2 Item 12
A member of the editorial board or advisory board of an international scientific journal with a lower impact factor and for humanities journals indexed by A&HCI or another international bibliographical database of humanities   1 Item 12
Exceptional achievements in publications 1.4 10  
Joint scientific publications with a Nobel or Fields prize winner or a winner of another prestigious award   up to 4
Joint publication with a Nobel or Fields prize winner or a winner of another prestigious award with the prize fund per award winner exceeding € 500,000   4 Item 16
Joint publication with a winner of another prestigious award with the prize fund per award winner of € 100,000-500,000   3 Item 16
Joint publication with a winner of another prestigious award with the prize fund per award winner of € 20,000-100,000   2 Item 16
Joint publication with a winner of another prestigious award with the prize fund per award winner of up to € 20,000   1 Item 16
Scientific publications in journals with an impact factor of over 15 or publications in the first two journals with the highest impact factor in the field according to the Web of Science or for humanities in the best humanities journals   2 Item 17
(Co)author of a science book published by a renowned international publishing company   2 Item 18
Publication of over 100 papers in SCI and SSCI journals, journals indexed by A&HCI or another international bibliographical database of humanities   2 Item 19
Patents granted by an office performing a full test of the patent application (see the Rules of Procedure, Encl. 2, Item2.E)   4
Exceptional achievements in citations 1.5 10  
Listed in citation classics according to the ISI   4 Item 15
The number of citations in the last 10 years   up to 3
Total number of citations exceeding 500   3 Item 14
Total number of citations exceeding 250   1 Item 14
Three most cited scientific papers in the last 10 years   up to 3
Total number of citations exceeding 500   3 Item 13
Total number of citations exceeding 250   1 Item 13
Relevance and potential impact of the application 4 10 Item 22
Importance for the research team (Slovenia) hosting the foreign researcher 4.16 1 - 5  
Value added of cooperation with the foreign researcher   1-3
Cooperation includes doctoral or postdoctoral students   0-2 also Item 5
Importance for the research organisation hosting the foreign researcher 4.15 0 – 3  
Value added of cooperation with the foreign researcher   0-2
Expected notice taken of the lectures given by the foreign researcher   0-1
Significance for Slovenia 4.17 0 - 2  
Expected progress in research quality   0-1
Significance of cooperation for socioeconomic development   0-1

* The adding together of points by set is made or verified by the person at the Agency responsible for the call for proposals. If the sum of points of an indicator (1.6, 1.4 or 1.5) exceeds the maximum possible score, the maximum possible score of an indicator shall apply. If the number of points in a row exceeds the maximum possible score in that row, the maximum possible score shall apply.

II. Evaluation procedure

Each application is evaluated by one or two reviewers. The reviewer evaluates the application on the basis of the application form: ARRS-TURAZ-01-20xx. The reviewers evaluate individual evaluation elements by filling in the evaluation sheet containing numerical scores by individual element (indicator).

After the scoring and the received reviewers’ evaluation, the expert body examines the evaluations and may call upon the reviewers to provide additional substantiations for the evaluation.

III. Period

As a rule, the Agency co-finances participation of foreign researchers for a period of three months.

IV. Eligible cost

The Agency provides funding for payment of research work of foreign researchers in the Republic of Slovenia cost of travel from the country of residence of the foreign researcher to the Republic of Slovenia and back, cost of accommodation in the Republic of Slovenia.

The Agency funds payment of work of foreign researchers by applying the A price category of research hours.
 

G. INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE AND DATABASES

I. Evaluation elements

Availability is measured by the number of users, terms and conditions of access and use by all users in the Republic of Slovenia. The frequency of use is measured by the number of loans and uses of periodicals, and by the number of uses of databases (sessions/searches) in the previous year. Continuity of subscriptions is measured by the period of subscriptions and disposal with a fund or by access to data in databases, and assumes improved user services. Staff qualifications (librarians and IT experts) for cooperating with the users is proven by more complex levels of preparing material for the users and by the corresponding staff composition of the applicant. Quality and significance are measured for scientific journals with an impact factor for the field (for SCIE and SSCI, ERIH, and ACHI). If the journal is included in several fields, the classification with the highest score will apply (data from the latest JCR). The calculation is made on the basis of the average for all journals proposed for co-financing by the applicant. The price and the coordination of purchase are taken into account in the evaluation of alignment of the proposed scope of activities with the planned budget and providing for rational use of funds.

The evaluation elements are specified in Table G.

Table G: Evaluation for individual evaluation elements

QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION ELEMENTS Criterion
Indicator		 Points Source
Relevance of the supporting activity 7 21
Accessibility 7.1 1 - 8 ARRS-RI-TL-01-20xx, Item 6
The number of researchers employed in the organisation:   1-5
up to 100 researchers   1
up to 200 researchers   2
up to 500 researchers   3
up to 1000 researchers   4
more than 1000 researchers   5
The size of the library with regard to the library material:   1-3
Large university libraries   3
Large university school or small university libraries   2
Other libraries open to students   1
Frequency of use 7.2 0-8 ARRS-RI-TL-01-20xx, Item 7
By the number of loans and uses of periodicals   0-5
By the number of uses of databases (sessions/searches)   0-3
Continuity of orders 7.3 0-5 ARRS-RI-TL-01-20xx, Item 8
1-5 years   1
6-10 years   3
11 years or more   5
Quality of the application regarding supporting activity 8 1-15
Quality and significance of the subscribed international scientific literature and databases 8.7 1-15 ARRS-RI-TL-01-20xx, Item 11
IF from the first quarter of journals of the appropriate category   15
IF from the second quarter of journals of the appropriate category   10
IF from the third quarter of journals of the appropriate category, ERIH A   6
IF from the fourth quarter of journals of the appropriate category, ERIH B   4
Inclusion in a specialised database of the field, also ERIH C   2
Relevance and potential impact of the application 4 1-3  
Share of funding from other sources 4.7 1-3 ARRS-RI-TL-01-20xx, Item 10
Up to 5% of the annual purchase   1
6-10% of the annual purchase   2
11% and more of the annual purchase   3
Feasibility of the proposal 5 6
Alignment of the proposed scope of activities with the planned budget and providing for rational use of funds 5.7 0-3 ARRS-RI-TL-01-20xx, Item 12
Economical and rational purchase, acquisition method and duplication (coordination)   0-3
Staff qualifications 5.8 0-3 ARRS-RI-TL-01-20xx, Item 9
Loan to users   1
Additional librarian and IT services (reference service and interlibrary loan)  s 1
Additional librarian and IT services (reference service and interlibrary loan)
- Use of COBISS3 in an appropriate environment		   2
Complex librarian and IT services (provided by experts with at least a master’s degree)   3

II. Classification of applications by group and proposal for a financially evaluated application list

The applications are evaluated by the expert body for international scientific literature and databases by science field based on the application for co-financing purchase of international periodicals, databases and the cost of a consortium for electronic access to full text of the contents (form: ARRS-RI-TL-01-20xx) on the evaluation sheet (ARRS-RI-TL-03-20xx). The chair of the expert body shall evaluate the applications entailing a conflict of interest.

The journals within a consortium ordered and paid by an individual library are a part of regular financing and are evaluated on the basis of the scores specified above with 2 points added for each 10% of purchases. The journals available in electronic form within consortiums and not being a condition for a consortium are not evaluated.
 

H. INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION

I. Elements of evaluating and forming the proposal of priority lists of evaluated applications

International scientific cooperation is evaluated on the basis of the application form for co-financing international scientific cooperation. The expert committee with three members appointed by the director of the Agency for each call for proposals shall determine the compliance of project proposals with priorities (priority fields) of the call for proposals by marking each project proposal with “YES” (hereinafter: the Compliant Applications) or ”NO”(hereinafter: the Non-compliant Applications).

The evaluation of an application for co-financing international scientific cooperation (hereinafter: the application) is the score A1 – SICRIS (COBISS) points (accounted points) for published research papers in 5 years (0-5 points), for the project manager, determined on the basis of elements specified in Section B herein. The latest published values from the SICRIS website shall be used.

The expert committee classifies applications to the priority list of applications based on the collected points in descending order, separately for the Compliant and the Non-compliant Applications.

II. Framework programmes projects

The Agency shall pay a once-off financial contribution of € 2,500 for the application cost for a project entered in calls for proposals within the EU framework programmes, which the European Commission found to be formally complete and submitted it for review, to the Slovenian organisation applying the project as the coordinator in an international consortium (i.e. at least three different research organisations from at least three different EU Member States or associated countries) and € 1,000 to the Slovenian organisation participating in the project as a partner institution in an international consortium or applying the project independently if the call is made to individual applicants as well. The applicants achieving a half or less of the maximum score in a review procedure shall not be entitled to the contribution.

III. Accepting co-financing under the complementary scheme

The Agency shall co-finance, by taking into account the budget constraints,applicants from Slovenia carrying out the project in Slovenia but not exceeding the scope set out in the table below.

International call for proposals Planned scope and duration of financing with regard to the international call for proposals The success achieved before refusal
(threshold for possible co-financing)		 The amount of annual co-financing (as % of the amount applied for on the international call for proposals or the maximum possible amount) and the period of co-financing by the Agency
ERC Starting Grant
 Up to € 300,000 annually (up to 5 years) selected for the 2nd round 37.5% or a max. of € 100,000 (2 years)
  a positive mark in the 2nd round 50% or a max. of € 150,000 (2 years)
ERC Advanced Grant Up to € 400,000 annually (up to 5 years) a positive mark in the 1st round 25% or a max. of € 100,000 (3 years)
    selected for the 2nd round 37.5% or a max. of € 150,000 (3 years)
    a positive mark in the 2nd round 50% or a max. of € 200,000 (3 years)
ESF – EUROCORES programmes Up to € 200,000 annually (up to 4 years) a positive mark in the final round 100% or a max. of € 200,000 (3 years)

The applicant shall enclose, in addition to evidence on achieved success on the international call for proposals, an application for an adapted project which takes into account, in terms of objectives and the scope of work, the composition of the adapted project team, the duration of the adapted project and the amount of available funding. If the international project was entered by an international consortium, the application for an adapted project shall include statements of the consortium members on the possibilities and scope of participation in the adapted project.

The expert body for evaluating adapted projects appointed by the SCA shall assess whether the adapted project provides for realisation of the main objectives of the international project and propose to the Scientific Council of the Agency the amount and duration of co-financing.

The director of the Agency shall issue, upon a proposal from the SCA, an individual decision determining the amount and duration of co-financing. Co-financing shall be made within one year following adoption of the individual decision. The Agency will conclude a contract with the applicant specifying in detail the mode of project financing and implementation and determining the category of the research hour price. The contract shall be based on the template published in each annual call for proposals for (co)financing research projects.

IV. Accepting co-financing under the leading agency

If an application for a scientific research project with participation of a Slovenian researcher is proposed for co-financing on a call for proposals made by the Austrian Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung (FWF), the Agency may accept co-financing the Slovenian part in the amount proposed by the SCA and adopted by the director in accordance with the funding earmarked in the Agency's budget.

The maximum amount of co-financing is € 100,000 for a period of not more than three years (a maximum of € 300,000) or 1700 annual research hours (1 FTE)of the B price category, for a period of not more than two years for a postdoctoral project. The annual and the total amount of co-financing of the Austrian part of the project by the FWF shall exceed the amount for the Slovenian part.
 

I. RESEARCH PROGRAMMES

I. General

The persons carrying out research programmes shall submit the following upon a call from the Agency:

  1. form ARRS-ZV-RPROG-PP-04/20xx: the programme proposal and the work programme of the programming group for the next financing period
  2. form ARRS-ZV-RPROG-PP-04/20xx -PR1: contents/description of the proposed research programme
  3. form(s) ARRS-ZV-RPROG-DOD2/20xx
  4. form ARRS-ZV-RPROG-PODROCJE/20xx (for new programmes only)

II Evaluation

The expert body for each field shall select two reviewers from the list of foreign reviewers prepared by the Agency. The reviewers shall be researchers in the field of work of the evaluated research programmes.

The reviewers give their evaluations on evaluation sheets. The reviewers may provide brief grounds in writing for their evaluation or comments to individual evaluation elements in their evaluation.

The Agency shall prepare application material, quantitative data on the work of the programming group and the evaluation sheet form for members of working bodies for each programme due for completion in the following year and quantitative data on the work performed by the programming group so far for the programmes in the same field not due for completion in the following year.

In the case of a new programme, the results of members entering the research programme will be used for the criteria of research excellence of the researcher or the research team and the socioeconomic or cultural relevance of research results of the researcher or the research team.

III Evaluation elements

The programme manager shall meet the conditions for a basic project manager.

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 5.5; natural sciences

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 5.0; technical sciences

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 2.5; medical sciences, pharmaceutical sciences and geology

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 3.5; biotechnology and biology

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 2.0; social sciences and clinical medicine

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 2.5; humanities

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 4.5; interdisciplinary

The evaluation elements are specified in Table I.

Table I: Evaluation of research programmes

Evaluation elements
Criteria		 Criterion
 Research programmes
Indicators and yardsticks		 Points Source
Research excellence of the researcher or the research team 1 1.3. Above-average scientific excellence (A', A" and A4)
1.4. Exceptional achievements in publications
1.5. Exceptional achievements in citations
1.6. Status excellence
1.8. Participation in international projects or parts of international projects (not bilateral ones co-financed by the Agency)		 0 – 5 the Agency
ARRS- ZV-RPROG-PP-04/20xx, Item II.5.1, II.5.6
The group stands out in most or all of the listed categories; is above average 4 - 5  
The group achieves a sound level in the listed categories; is roughly on average 2-3
The group does not achieve a sound level in a number of listed categories or is completely below average 0-1
Socioeconomic or cultural relevance of research results of the researcher or the research team 2 2.3. Proven mentorship in graduation, master’s and doctoral theses
2.10. Indirect importance to the society (promotion of the country, inclusion in the international labour division, education of human resources, etc.)
2.11. Implementation of research programme objectives
2.12. Flow of young researchers
2.13. Hosting researchers
2.14. Inclusion of corporate researchers/experts		 0 – 5 ARRS- ZV-RPROG-PP-04/20xx, Item II.5.2, II.5.3, II.5.3.1, II.5.4, II.5.5, II.5.7, II.5.8, II.5.9, II.5.10
The group stands out in most or all of the listed categories; is above average; the same applies to the results of the outgoing research programme 4 - 5  
The group achieves a sound level in the listed categories; is roughly on average; the same applies to the results of the outgoing research programme 2-3
The group does not achieve a sound level in a number of listed categories or is completely below average; the same applies to the results of the outgoing research programme 0-1
R&D quality of the application 3 3.1. Scientific significance of the topic
3.2. Current nature of the initial hypothesis and methodological adequacy or design of research
3.3. A clear idea and quality of objectives
3.4. Original (new) expected results		 0 – 5 ARRS- ZV-RPROG-PP-04/20xx -PR1, Item 5, 6, 7 
  State-of-the-art application 4-5
  Quality application 2-3
  Lower quality application 0-1
Relevance and potential impact of the application 4 4.1. Direct significance for businesses and publicly-provided services (a company, industry, several industries, social infrastructure, civil service, incorporation of new enterprises, cultural development and preservation of national identity, protection of natural and cultural heritage, etc.)
4.8. Significance for development of research (sub)segments in short supply
4.16. Potential impacts and effects of results		 0 – 5 ARRS- ZV-RPROG-PP-04/20xx -PR1, Item 8
  State-of-the-art application 4-5
  Quality application 2-3
  Lower quality application 0-1
Feasibility of the proposal 5 5.1. Qualifications of the manager (proven by completed projects and mentorships)
5.2. Adequacy of the work plan
5.3. Adequacy of the project’s feasibility, scope and duration
5.4. Adequacy of composition of the team (interdisciplinary and interinstitutional nature)
5.5. Availability of premises and equipment
5.6. Inclusion in programmes and projects		 0 – 5 ARRS- ZV-RPROG-PP-04/20xx -PR1, Item 9, 10, 11
State-of-the-art application 4-5
Quality application 2-3
Lower quality application 0-1

The result of the work of the expert body is a draft priority list of applications including the proposed financing amount and the duration of the research programme (3-6 years or discontinuing). As a rule, the amount of financing for positively evaluated programmes remains the same.

The Agency shall prepare a new invitation for those research organisations with more than one research programme of which one was discontinued and a new one not accepted for financing.

The research organisations referred to in the previous paragraph hereunder may enter a new programme to the invitation or propose an increase to an existing programme. Researchers from discontinued programmes meeting the conditions for a head of a research programme may be allocated by research hours to the entered programmes, subject to the approval of the researcher and the head of the research programme.

If a research programme received a negative evaluation and the programme was the only one of the research organisation, such an organisation would lose funding.
 

J. INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMMES

I. General

The Agency monitors and oversees implementation of infrastructure programmes on the basis of annual reports and reports prepared one year before expiry of the contract, which contain quality indicators of the infrastructure programme, as well as on the basis of financial reports on purpose use of funds in accordance with the contracts.

II Forms

The PRI or the CRI shall submit reports on forms prescribed by the Director of the Agency. The Agency shall publish annual report forms on its website. The forms comprise:

  • a substantive annual report on the results of the infrastructure programme in the preceding year;
  • the annual work plan of the infrastructure programme (hereinafter: the IP) for the current year; and
  • the annual financial report on implementation of the infrastructure activity in the preceding and the budget for the current year.

III Processing procedure

  1. The annual reports and work plans of infrastructure activity are discussed by the Scientific Research Council for Interdisciplinary Research(hereinafter: the SCD). The SCD shall give a substantive evaluation of implementation of infrastructure activity in the RO, specifying whether the amount of co-financing eligible costs of the IP (direct costs of material and costs of services, and depreciation and amortisation cost) for individual RO is appropriate or perhaps too low or too high (up to half a page per RO).
     
  2. The expert committee of the Agency prepares an overview of the following based on annual reports and work plans of infrastructure activity:
    • financial realisation of costs of material and intangibles and depreciation and amortisation cost of the IP; and
    • the needs for co-financing eligible costs of infrastructure activity in the current year; and
    • drafting a proposal for the amount of co-financing of eligible costs of the IP for individual research organisations (hereinafter: the RO) for the current year.
  3. The SCA discusses and adopts the proposal for the amount of co-financing of eligible costs of the IP for individual research organisations for the current year. The decision of the SCA shall be based on the evaluation by the SCD and the proposals from the expert committee.
     
  4. The Agency shall on the basis of the proposal from the SCA inform the RO on the amount of co-financing eligible costs of implementing the IP for individual RO and call upon the RO to provide to the Agency a feedback information on internal distribution of funds between organisational units (hereinafter: the OU) in the current year based on the evaluation procedure for implementation of the infrastructure activity in the RO if the IP is implemented by several internal OU.
     
  5. The evaluation procedure for the infrastructure activity of the RO as the basis for distribution by OU comprises the following elements:
    • the RO establishes an expert committee (hereinafter: the committee) for evaluating implementation of the IP by OU in the preceding year;
    • the committee proposes internal distribution of the allocated funding for co-financing eligible costs of the IP among OU based on a review of the annual report on implementation of the infrastructure activity in the preceding year and the substantive plan and budget for the current year;
    • based on the proposal from the committee, the head of the IP, in agreement with the legal representative of the RO, submits the proposal for the distribution of funds among OU to the Agency. The proposal is signed by the head of the IP and the legal representative of the RO;
    • the RO encloses the submitted proposal with a report of the expert committee on the performed evaluation procedure for the IP as the basis for the distribution among OU.
       
  6. The director of the Agency then submits the proposal for the amount of financing eligible costs of the IP of the RO to the SCA for discussion and adoption and the SCA decides on the amount of co-financing eligible costs of the IP for individual RO in the current year.
     

K. CENTRAL SPECIALISED INFORMATION CENTRES

I. Evaluation elements

The evaluation elements are specified in Table K.

QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION ELEMENTS Criterion, indicator Points Source
Feasibility of the proposal 5 10  
Staff qualifications 5.8 5 ARRS-OSIC-RI-01/20xx Item 2, 4
Evaluation elements for staff qualifications:
- qualifications of experts to assess appropriateness of classification of bibliographical units of researchers under the applicable typology of documents/papers for managing bibliographies in the COBISS.SI system
- qualifications for working in the mutual cataloguing system (compulsory licence with access privileges for redesigning the norm database)
- any previous activities on tasks being the subject matter of the call for proposals		  
The applicant fully meets most or all of the required elements, minimum discrepancies   5
The applicant mostly meets the required elements but with noticeable deficiencies   3 - 4
Meeting of the required elements not optimal; major deficiencies   0 - 2
Appropriate organisation of the centre for successfully performing tasks 5.9 5 ARRS-OSIC-RI-01/20xx Item 3
The centre has appropriate organisation for performing its activity   5  
Noticeable deficiencies in the centre’s organisation   0-4

 
L. ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE METHODOLOGY

The Methodology shall enter into force on the day following its publication on the Agency’s website.

 
Prof. Dr. Vito Turk
Chair of the Scientific Council of the Agency

 
Number: 6319-1/2011-4
Date: 25 July 2011