Selection Process

Please note that the DwB project's end-date is April 30th 2015. Therefore the call is closed and we cannot accept applications any more. The DwB projects selected 40 research projects from over 60 high quality research proposals received in eight calls in 2012–2014 to receive support through the project. The selection process is explained below.

The applicants were advised to check the availability of the designated datasets and contact the Research Data Centres to check the feasibility of their project with the data before applying. The Research Data Centres conducted administrative checks to ensure that the required data were available, the research was feasible and the applicant was likely to pass the accreditation process.

Following successful administrative checks, the form was passed to the User Selection Panel. The panel rated each project using a Scientific Merit Score and provided supporting comments. Applicants whose projects were rejected were provided with information on the reasons.

Following approval from the panel, the researcher was guided through, and supported in, completing the RDC’s individual application and accreditation procedures. Typically the approval process took no longer than a month. However, the Statistics Netherlands and GENES approval process may have taken a bit longer. Data use had to start within 6 months after being approved by the panel, otherwise the offer of reimbursement was withdrawn.

Successful applicants should be careful to keep any receipts (e.g. for travel and accommodation) for reimbursement purposes. Note that any expenses being claimed must have been spent before the DwB project end-date, April 30th 2015.

 

User Selection Panel

The panel consists of experts in their field, many of whom are active researchers:

  • Eric Bartelsman, Free University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • Mojca Bavdaz, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
  • Nick Buck, Institute for Social and Economic Research, UK
  • Tanvi Desai, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
  • Rainer Lenz, Saarland State University of Applied Sciences, Germany
  • Janez Stebe, Slovenian Social Science Data Archive, Slovenia
  • Alain Trognon, Universit√© Paris 1, France

 

Scientific Merit Score

The scoring scheme is based on the UK's ESRC numerical scoring scale for grant proposals:

  • 6 The proposal is outstanding in terms of its potential scientific merit.
  • 5 The proposal is excellent in terms of its potential scientific merit.
  • 4 The proposal is important as it has considerable potential merit.
  • 3 The proposal has significant potential scientific merit but is not of a consistently high quality.
  • 2 The proposal will add to understanding and is worthy of support, but is of lesser quality or urgency than more highly rated proposals. Such proposals are unlikely to have a significant influence on the development of the research area.
  • 1 The proposal is flawed in its scientific approach, or is repetitious of other work, or otherwise judged not worth pursuing; or which, though possibly having sound objectives, appears seriously defective in its methodology.
  • 0 Not able to assess