ASRF students evaluation form

1. Students Competition Evaluation Form
Revision 1.1,
Jan. 2012
European Commission
Student Competition Evaluation Form - Rev.1 1 1 / 8

2. I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Proposal Information
Proposal No.
Title
Acronym
Evaluator Information
Name
Position
Organization
Contact
information
Email
Fax
Mobile Phone
Mailing Address
Research interest
keywords1
Note1: For future evaluations
Key specialization
Acronym Scientific Area Field Selection
AF Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Sciences
BT Biotechnology
CI Chemical Industries
DM Drugs & Medicines
EE Electrical & Electronics Technologies
EG Energy (including renewable energies)
EN Environment, (including Climate Change)
HE Healthcare
IT Information and Communication Technologies
MC Mechanics & Construction
NN Nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials & new
production technologies
NS Natural / Pure science
SE Security and Safety
SH Socio-economic Sciences and the Humanities
TT Transport & logistics
WA Water, Waste & Utilities
OT Other: Please specify
Student Competition Evaluation Form - Rev.1 1 2 / 8

3. Note:
 Please chose the most appropriate item
TO THE EVALUATOR
To what degree are you familiar with the proposed topic?
▒ I am currently active in this specific area
▒ I have carried out research work recently (<5 yrs) in this specific area
▒ I have carried out research work (>5 yrs) in this specific area
▒ My experience is in the general area but I have not worked in this specific area
Other comments:
Note:
 Please complete all questions and explain, where possible, your answers
 at least one criteria from each section, to help with a comprehensive view
 evaluation forms without supporting explanation can NOT be accepted
 In parts II., III. And IV please select values from 0 to 5 to rate the evaluation
criteria where 5 is the highest and 0 is the lowest, check the following table1
for description of the score/rate.
Value Score Description1
0 Fail The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or
cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information
1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are
serious inherent weaknesses.
2 Fair While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are
significant weaknesses.
3 Good The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements
would be necessary.
4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain
improvements are still possible.
5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the
criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
NC Don’t know or can NOT assess from the available information
Note1: Description adopted form EU Framework Program (FP7)
Student Competition Evaluation Form - Rev.1 1 3 / 8

4. II. Quality of Science
Criteria1
Score
1- Scientific significance of the proposal objectives
▒
Justifications:
2- Clarity of the project goals and the identification of the problem to be
solved
▒Justifications:
3- Measurable outcome(s) of the project
▒
Justifications:
Note 1: Please justify your rating, at least one question from each section for the evaluation to
be considered valid
Student Competition Evaluation Form - Rev.1 1 4 / 8

5. III. Implementation and Project Plan
Criteria Score
1- Capabilities of the project team (students) to conduct the project (refer
also to the students supervisors recommendations in the application)
▒Justifications:
2- Clarity of the project partner support and contribution
▒
Justifications:
3- Budget estimation/request adequacy
▒
Justifications:
Student Competition Evaluation Form - Rev.1 1 5 / 8

6. IV. Impact of the project results
Criteria Score
1- Novelty of the expected outcome(s)
▒
Justifications:
2- The solution addresses immediate market or industrial need/pain (does
the solution meet an identifiable industrial need?)
▒Justifications:
3- Potential impact of the project results / solutions on enhancing the
productivity, cost saving or products quality, etc.
▒Justifications:
Student Competition Evaluation Form - Rev.1 1 6 / 8

7. V. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1- Overall confidence of the success of this project in both technical
implementation and market introduction (rating of 1 low – 5 high)
▒
Justifications:
2- In your opinion, should the research be successful, where the project will make
the highest impact?
Environment
(CleanTechnologies)
Economy/Employment/pro
ductivity
Public health and safety
Social or community
benefit (quality of life)
Technology excellence
Other impacts
2- Funding recommendation
▒ I recommend this proposal for funding
▒ I do not recommend this proposal for funding
Student Competition Evaluation Form - Rev.1 1 7 / 8

8. V. HONORARIUM
As a small recognition for the evaluators’ valuable contribution, ASRF provides
JOD 50 to each evaluator. If you prefer to decline this compensation, the
amount will be re-invested into the fund as a contribution to future funding
opportunities.
Honorarium payment options
1- I prefer a certified cheque on the following name
▒
Full Name:
2- I prefer to transfer/wire/deposit the amount to my bank account with the
following details
▒
1- Bank name:
2- Bank address:
3- Bank branch:
4- Account number:
5- Swift code if outside Jordan:
6- Beneficiary name:
3- Would prefer to decline and have the amount put in the research fund
I would like my name to be published in ASRF website as one of
contributors/supporters to ASRF fund
▒
I prefer NOT to mention my contribution to the fund in ASRF website
under list of supporters
▒
You are kindly requested to return this form to:
 Applied Scientific Research Fund (ASRF)
 Email: info@asrf.jo
 Tel: +962-6-515-5095
 Fax: +962-6-516-1399
Student Competition Evaluation Form - Rev.1 1 8 / 8