Grupo de Alocação em Bloco

The BAG Evaluation Committee will evaluate the proposals adopting the criteria mentioned in table below, using scores from 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) the topics presented in the project. The criteria below are adapted from the IUPAP recommendation.

• Synergy between the BAG members: It evaluates how the research field of the BAG members are aligned with each other and if they have collaborations, resource sharing, between others. Research groups from different areas, even from the same University/Research Institute, will have to distress their synergy. This criterium may be used by the evaluation committee as elimination from this call.

  5 – Extraordinary. High synergy between the BAG members, notable collaboration presented by the effective resource sharing, joint projects, and excellent joint publications.
  4 – Excellent. Strong synergy between the BAG members, good collaboration presented by effective resource sharing, joint projects, and quality individual/joint publications.
  3 – Good. Satisfactory synergy between the BAG members, adequate collaboration presented by reasonable resource sharing and/or joint projects and/or satisfactory individual/joint publications.
  2 – Regular. Limited synergy between the BAG members, occasional collaboration presented by limited resource sharing and inconsistent joint publication.
  1 – Weak. Absence of synergy between the BAG members, lack of collaboration, limited resource sharing and absence of joint publication.

  Scientific Motivation, Objectives, and Originality: Evaluates the clarity, scientific relevance, and connection with objectives, as well as the specificity, innovation of objectives, and the impact of the research on science and society.

  5 – Extraordinary. Clear description of relevance and impact, specific and innovative objectives. Solid connection with objectives.
  4 – Excellent. Well-presented motivation, understanding the importance. Clear and tangible objectives with some innovation. Some gaps in the connection with objectives.
  3 – Good. Adequate motivation, defined objectives, and reasonable original hypotheses.
  2 – Regular. Unclear motivation, imprecise objectives, and limited originality of hypotheses.
  1 – Weak. Unclear/absent motivation, poorly defined objectives, and minimal originality of hypotheses.

  Justification for Equipment Usage: Evaluates a solid justification for the use of equipment and the appropriateness of proposed experiments to the techniques suggested in the project, as well as the availability of these in the equipment.

  5 – Extraordinary. Solid justification with excellent alignment between expected results and available techniques.
  4 – Excellent. Good justification with relevant technical alignment between expected results and available techniques.
  3 – Good. Coherent justification regarding the use of equipment.
  2 – Regular. The project presents weak justification, or the group has similar techniques and access to instruments.
  1 – Weak. The project did not present coherent justification with expected results.

  Expected Results and Experimental Techniques: Evaluates the clarity of the results and the adequacy of the techniques.

  5 – Extraordinary. Clear expected results connected to objectives. Detailed and justified experimental techniques.
  4 – Excellent. Expected results mentioned, the connection to objectives could be more direct.
  3 – Good. Explained experimental techniques, but the connection to results could be stronger.
  2 – Regular. Expected results may be vague. Listed experimental techniques, but complete explanation is lacking.
  1 – Weak. Expected results absent or disconnected, inappropriate techniques.

  Previous Experience and Group’s Relevance: Evaluates the group’s experience and its relevance to the project.

  5 – Extraordinary. Detailed experience highlighted previous contributions, clear scientific relevance.
  4 – Excellent. Mentioned experience, recognized contributions, addressed relevance.
  3 – Good. Mentioned experience, but details of previous projects could be clearer. Relevance could be more explicit.
  2 – Regular. Limitedly addressed experience, relevance may be absent.
  1 – Weak. Absent or irrelevant experience, lack of justification for the group’s capability.

As there in other calls, all the scientific production generated during the BAG period which involves the LNNano open facilities, even at the beginning of the project, must be acknowledged using the standard procedure. In case of unacknowledgement of the open facilities use, sanctions may be applied in the project or in future submissions

The BAG Evaluation Committee will be composed by the actual members of the evaluation committee of Electron Microscopy and Cryomicroscopy, upon availability of the researchers. The BAG Evaluation Committee is composed of three subcommittees: Electron microscopy (inorganic materials) – ME-C1, Structural Biology – Cryo-EM-C2 and Soft Matter-ME-C3.

Tabela 2: Composition of the BAG Evaluation Committee and the subcommittees

After the submission period, the proposals will be assessed by the feasibility evaluation team composed of the staff and open facilities coordinators. The proposals that are feasible will be forwarded to the BAG Evaluation Committee and the subcommittee will meet to evaluate the proposals. The accepted proposals will then be evaluated by the CNPEM safety committee and the User´s Office will disclose the results of the call.