Draft part 1: Technical Annex
A. ABSTRACT
Maximum 200 words, maximum 5 keywords or very short phrases
General remark: Be very clear and precise as this section will form the basis for COST information – web site and booklets – and reporting. The Abstract should include the broader scientific context of the Action as well as the expected deliverables and benefits. It should also indicate the European added value of the Action and the reasons for undertaking it in the COST framework.
B. BACKGROUND
Maximum 2-3 pages
C. OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS
Maximum 2 pages
D. SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME
Maximum 3-4 pages
E. ORGANISATION
Maximum 2 pages
General remark: You need not reiterate organisational features common for all COST Actions, described in the “Rules and Procedures for Implementing COST Actions” (doc. COST 299/06). As a rule, organisational matters should be mentioned only if you intend to apply them in some specific way. In order to avoid unnecessary repetitions or contradictions, please refer to Rules and Procedures when drafting this section.
F. TIMETABLE
Maximum 1/2 page
G. ECONOMIC DIMENSION
Maximum 1/2 pages
H. DISSEMINATION PLAN
Maximum 2 pages
Draft part 2: Additional information
Maximum 10 pages (excluding Part A)
General remark: The main purpose of the second part of the proposal is to facilitate the assessment of the proposal and the nomination of National Representatives to the Management Committee (MC). This part will not be element of the MoU. To some extent, however, the information contained in it may also be useful, when the Action starts and a detailed work programme is being planned. Note that part A (List of Experts) is mandatory as the information given here is important for the later nominations to the MC.
The structure of the Additional Information is not standardised and you are at liberty to structure it in any logical way. A suggested guideline is given hereafter under the following subheadings:
Two lists should be submitted. The first is a list of experts who have been consulted during the drafting of the proposal and who have already expressed interest in participating in the Action. The second list, if appropriate, covers those experts who may well be interested but who have not been contacted, or who have not yet replied, during the pre-proposal planning. Please highlight the experts that might be part of the Management Committee (give full contact details), subject to the appointment by the COST countries concerned. For the others, please list only title, institution and e-mail.
Name and title: Country: Institution:
Contact details (if appropriate):
E-mail: Telephone:
At the stage of approval of the draft MoU, remember to provide, the COST Office with a detailed updated list of potential participants in the Action for the CSO, in order to facilitate the work of the CNCs (clearly distinguishing contacted and non-contacted experts).
The purpose of this section is to give the historical background of the proposal: how the idea of the COST Action was born and how the subsequent definition of the objectives and the pre-proposal planning was carried out.
Especially if the proposal is very complex and based on participation of research teams from different fields of research interacting in a specific way, you may wish to explain how this has been envisaged, at a more concrete level than that indicated in the draft Technical Annex.
In order to make it easier to assess the scientific merits of the proposal, you may wish to compile a short list of recent scientific publications relating to the topic of the Action. If desired, you could group all the publications authored or co-authored by you as a kind of scientific self-portrait. This should be a maximum of 2 pages.
In this subheading you may add any information or remarks but also comment on the following assessment criteria as outlined in Annex B.
- To what extent does the proposed network aim at involving early-stage researchers?
- To what extent does the proposed network aim at being gender balanced?
- Does the number of countries the Applicants come from reflect a wide European dimension?
- To what extent have provisions been made for monitoring and evaluating the achievement of objectives?
- To what extent have provisions been made for assessing potential application, and fostering exploitation, of results?
