Proposals for receiving PRACE resources are subject to PRACE peer review that comprises a technical review followed by scientific one.
Technical reviewers are selected based on experience in PRACE systems and software and preferably some application area. Technical reviewers assess proposals in regard to feasibility for the requested PRACE system and appropriateness of the amount of requested resources. Technical reviewers may also determine that a PRACE system different from the one requested would be more suitable for the proposed project. The recommendations of the technical reviewers are used by the Access Committee in assessing and recommending allocation of available resources to proposed projects.
Scientific reviewers are selected based on expertise in at least one scientific aspect of a proposal. Scientific reviewers may be selected from among reviewers proposed by applicants, but for a given proposal at most one reviewer may be selected from the applicants list of suggested reviewers. Each proposal is reviewed by experts selected by the PRACE peer review staff seeking to assure as good a coverage as possible of the scientific aspects of the proposal. Scientific reviewers work independently from each other and their assessments are submitted to the PRACE peer review staff. The outcomes of the technical and scientific reviews are communicated to the applicants that have a right to reply before the outcome is forwarded to the Access Committee. Any reply form applicants will be included in the documentation sent to the Access Committee that will rank the proposals that have undergone scientific review. Scientific reviewers must sign a PRACE confidentiality and no-conflict of interest form assuring no conflict in the reviewing process.
Reviewers’ input is the most important element in the peer review process and therefore assessments should be timely, objective, fair and informed. It is essential that reviewers provide constructive criticism with evidence and information to support statements made.
All reviews should be submitted in English.
Reviewers need to fill out a form giving their assessment of the proposal based on the criteria of the call and PRACE scientific criteria.
Each reviewer also must assure no conflict by signing a PRACE confidentiality and no-conflict of interest form.
1. Confidentiality and Conflict of interest
Reviewers must treat the proposals that they review in confidence both during and after the review process to maintain the integrity of the peer review process.
If the reviewer is unable to review a proposal due to a conflict of interest, she/he should inform the PRACE peer review staff promptly. PRACE adheres to the conflict of interest policies common to public funding agencies. The PRACE confidentiality and no-conflict of interest form can be found here.
2. Anonymity of reviewers
To maintain anonymity of reviewers their comments are communicated to applicants anonymously – reviewers’ names do not appear on the evaluation form.
After the first year of PRACE peer review, a list of reviewers’ names will be published on the PRACE website enabling PRACE to publicly acknowledge the contributions made to PRACE by individuals of the scientific communities, and for members of those communities to gain confidence in the quality of PRACE peer reviews. Reviewers may choose not to be included in the published list.
To ensure integrity of the review process reviewers are not allowed to use any of the information in proposals not already in the public domain for their own gain.
4. Feedback to applicants
Applicants will be given the chance to respond in writing to any factual inaccuracies or questions raised by the reviewers. Responses will be sent to the Access Committee together with the outcomes of the technical and scientific reviews.
Submission of reviews
Reviewers can access assigned proposals through the on-line PRACE peer review system and fill out the review form on-line. Reviewers can return to the review form to make changes and additions as many times as desired. When the review is final, reviewers must submit the review. The PRACE peer review staff will then be notified that the review is completed and will proceed with the review process.
Reviewers are asked to answer all of the questions and provide reasoning and evidence to back up their assessments.
Reviewers unable to carry out the review within the indicated time frame should inform the PRACE review staff immediately so that alternative reviewers can be contacted. In addition, reviewers should also inform the PRACE peer review staff if she/he does not feel qualified to review a proposal.
The peer review process is open but anonymous. The assessment procedure does not foresee confidential comments to be withheld from the applicants. Proposals with confidential information can be handled through a PRACE Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), but the use of NDA should be minimized.
The attached policy shall apply to any individual appointed or invited by PRACE to participate in a meeting or event, and to anyone responsible for accompanying a disabled participant appointed or invited by PRACE, wherever the location of the meeting or event.
PRACE will reimburse travel expenses to participants in meetings or events organised by PRACE or by any of its Bodies or Members on behalf of PRACE with the prior consent of the latter.
Please carefully read the attached policy of travel expenses and use the attached claim form and bank account form for any reimbursement claim to PRACE.
For further information please contact: finance[at]staff.prace-ri.eu