Evaluation and criteria

The Peer Review Panel

Access is granted on the basis of scientific quality of the proposals which will be reviewed and evaluated by a panel of international experts (Peer Review Panel – PRP), recognised for their expertise in the field of conservation and scientific studies of Cultural Heritage.

The PRP is a board independent from the IPERION CH partners, and it is composed by:

A. G. Karydas – A. Heritage – A. Lluveras – A. Denker – A. Balzeau – C. Pacheco – E. Godfrey – G. Eggert – G. Verri – H.E. Mahnke – J. Dani – J. Raisanen – K.T. Biró – K. Van Balen – L. Robbiola – P. Noble – P. Ropret – S. Greiff – S. Zucchiatti

ARCHLAB – Evaluation process and criteria

After the proposals are submitted, the ARCHLAB Program Coordinator and the ARCHLAB Welcome Desk, will verify the formal compliance with the EU regulations, undertaking a prioritizing of the applications based on available expertise, ongoing potential collaboration projects, available time etc. verifying as well the relevance/feasibility of access to the ARCHLAB facility. Applications will thereafter be transferred to Peer Review in order to evaluate the scientific content of the project and rank the proposals. The final decision will be reported to the ARCHLAB Coordinator who will notify the applicant and the access provider of the Peer Review conclusions. Each access provider will make a final decision concerning the extent of access provided to the User Group (number of days, period of the visit, provider internal rules, IPR issues, etc.). The selection is primarily based on the scientific quality; the originality of the scientific proposal, as well as the level of expertise to setup and conduct the proposed research using the data available by the User Group and the hosting provider. The applications should aim to increase the scientific output (qualitatively and quantitatively), optimize the use of local expertise of ongoing research activities and facilities, and foster lasting international science cooperation.

FIXLAB – Evaluation process and criteria

After the proposals are submitted, the access provider concerned together with FIXLAB Welcome Desk will verify the formal compliance with the EU regulations, undertaking a prioritizing of the applications based on available expertise, ongoing potential collaboration projects, available time etc. as well the necessity/feasibility for the use of the facility. All applications will thereafter be transferred to Peer Review evaluating the scientific content of the project and ranking the proposals. The final decision will be reported to the FIXLAB Welcome Desk who will notify the applicant and the access provider of the Peer Review conclusion. The access provider will make a final decision concerning the extent of access (instruments, days, period, IPR agreement, etc.). The selection is thus primarily based on the scientific quality; the originality of the scientific proposal, as well as the level of expertise to setup and conduct the proposed experiment and to analyze samples available in the User and host groups. The applications should aim to increase the scientific output (qualitatively and quantitatively), optimize the use of local expertise of ongoing research activities and facilities, and foster lasting international science cooperation.

MOLAB – Evaluation process and criteria

After the proposals are submitted, the MOLAB Program Coordinator will verify the formal compliance with the EU regulations, undertaking a prioritizing of the applications based on available expertise, ongoing potential collaboration projects, available time etc. verifying as well the relevance/feasibility of access to the MOLAB facility. Applications will thereafter be transferred to Peer Review in order to evaluate the scientific content of the project and rank the proposals. The final decision will be reported to the MOLAB Coordinator who will notify the applicant and the access provider of the Peer Review conclusions. Each access provider will make a final decision concerning the extent of access provided to the User Group (number of days, period of the visit, provider internal rules, IPR issues, etc.). The selection is primarily based on the scientific quality; the originality of the scientific proposal, as well as the level of expertise to setup and conduct the proposed research using the data available by the User Group and the hosting provider. The applications should aim to increase the scientific output (qualitatively and quantitatively), optimize the use of local expertise of ongoing research activities and facilities, and foster lasting international science cooperation.