Allegato 3 
 
                 Evaluation criteria and procedures 
 
1) As described in the call for proposals, the  evaluation  procedure
of the projects is entrusted to three evaluation  panels  (CdS),  one
for each of the three ERC research domains: 
   * Life sciences (LS) 
   * Physical sciences and engineering (PE) 
   * Social Sciences and Humanities (SH) 
 
2)  For   each   project,   the   panel   is   supported   by   three
anonymousexternal experts, nominated by the panel by virtue of  their
scientific credentials via  an  online  proceduremanaged  by  CINECA.
Panel  members  and  external  experts  operate  exclusively  through
specifically designedonline procedures. 
 
3) Evaluation Criteria 
 
   The evaluation of the scientific quality of the  project  aims  at
determining: 
    
   Criterion 1: 
    
 
   Quality  of  the  research  project:  ground-breaking  nature  and
methodology- 0 to 8 points 
    
The evaluation must  be  focusedon:  a)relevanceandoriginalityof  the
project(based on  the  state  of  the  artin  the  specificscientific
areaand on previous works of theproponent group); b) methodology;  c)
increaseof knowledgein the specific area  andinotherrelated  sectors,
withparticular regard  to  thenational  and/or  internationalresearch
systemand to the consistency and relevanceof the  projectwiththelines
of   HORIZON2020(when   applicable);   d)   contribution    to    the
promotionanddisseminationof science. Inspecific areas,  theassessment
shouldbe basedon:e)thecontributionto the promotion anddisseminationof
technological innovation; f) the production  of  knowledgethatcan  be
incorporatedin(and / orapplied to) specificcommercial sectors; g) the
developmentstransandinterdisciplinary. 
 
   Criterion 2: 
 
   Quality  of  the  research  team,feasibilityof  the  project   and
adequacy of the costs - 0 to 4 points 
The evaluation must be focused on: a) scientific results  of  the  PI
and other unit managers (LSandPE: bibliometric indicators,  relatedto
the number ofpublications and citations; SH:  qualityandimpactof  the
publications);     b)ability     to     carry     outthe     proposed
project(qualification  of  the  PI,andcomplementarycompositionof  the
membersof the team); c) ability to engageand train  youngresearchers;
d) degree of successofPI in Italianor international previousprojects)
e)   achievement   of   awardsandother    honorssuch    as    keynote
addressesatmajor conferences; f) project organization, with reference
to:   proposed   objectives,   time   estimated   to   complete   the
project,required resources(equipment, dimensionof the research  team,
management); g) coherenceof  thetemporal  affairsof  the  researchers
withtheeconomic  demands;  no  duplication  ofgoalswithother  ongoing
projects is allowed. 
 
   Criterion 3: 
 
   Potential impact - 0 to 3 points 
Project impact. The impactcanbedefined in several  ways,depending  on
the scientific area.It  can  be  referred,  as  appropriate,  to  the
influenceon  technological   innovation,   industrial   applications,
economic  growth,  developmentofmethods  for   mono-disciplinary   or
interdisciplinary projects. It can be  expressedas  a  contributionto
the solutionofsocial problems,   to  the  protectionof  the  cultural
heritageor the environment, to the knowledge and  culture  diffusion,
and  inmoregeneralterms,  to  the  common  awareness   with   respect
tocontemporary problems. 
 
4) Evaluation procedure 
 
For each project the evaluation panel (CdS) takes  into  account  the
evaluations of three external experts. 
One of the three experts is appointed as rapporteur and is in  charge
of drafting  a  provisional  and  detailedEvaluation  Summary  Report
(ESR), also based on the opinions of the two other experts. 
 
In the provisional draft of the ESR, the rapporteur  must  rate  each
project according to the following criteria: 
1) Very high quality projects: 15 
2) High quality projects:13 to 14 
3) Good quality projects: 11 to 12 
4) Medium quality projects: 9 to 10 
5) Lower quality projects: until 8 
    Each ESR must clearly highlight strengths and weaknesses of  each
project, with the purpose of 
    Helping  the  PI  to  submit  better  articulated  and  developed
proposals in the future. 
In the caseof production  of  "consensus"whitin  the  three  external
experts,  theprovisionalESR   automatically   turns   intodefinitive;
otherwise, the evaluation  panel  (CdS)  drafts  an  alternative  and
definitive ESR on its own, taking intoaccount the  assessmentsof  the
threeexperts. 
Once acquired all final ESR, the competent CdS completes its work  by
drawing up the list of projects for macro-sector, in  strict  respect
of the scores received by each project in the final ESR, and analyzes
the budget of each project, determining  reasonable  costs,  and  its
financing (calculated according to the rules of Annex  2),  with  the
eventual motivated proposal of necessary and appropriate  adjustments
for each individual item of  expenditure,  taking  into  account  the
following principles: 
 
* the cost of new contracts is established by specific  laws,  so  it
   cannot be decreased; 
* overheads (item of expenditure B) must be the 60% of  the  item  of
   expenditure A; 
* the amount of itemF cannot be changed; 
* it is not advisable in general to reduce any item of expenditure by
   more than 20-25% of what is 
* indicated in the project