Regular Access Mode Calls – Information for Applicants

The information provided below is a compilation of information that is important for applying to the Regular Access call. The main purpose is to provide this information in a single page complementing the information provided in the EuroHPC JU Access Policy and the Terms of Reference published yearly.

Eligibility

Scientists and researchers from academia, industry and public sector can apply for access to EuroHPC JU resources provided that they satisfy the specific criteria listed below:

  • The academic or public research organization is established or located in an EU Member State or in a country associated with Horizon 2020.
    OR
  • The company or the public organization is established or located in an EU Member State or in a country associated with Horizon 2020.
  • The Principal Investigator has an employment contract in the organization at the time of proposal submission and valid for at least three (3) months after the end of the allocation period.
  • For commercial companies and public organizations, the access is devoted solely for open R&D purposes.

Access Tracks

The applicants are able to choose to apply to one of three access tracks offered in the Regular Access call:

  • Scientific Access Track – Intended for applications from the academia and public research institutes.
  • Industry Access Track – Intended for applications with PIs coming from industry.
  • Public Administration Access Track – Intended for applications with PIs coming from the public sector.

The Peer-Review process

The Peer-Review process for proposals submitted to the Regular Access call follows the next workflow:

  1. Administrative Check

    The Peer-Review office checks the proposals in two parts: the online submission form and the Project Scope and Plan document. The proposals are assessed for any administrative inconsistency. The proposals must pass the administrative check in order to proceed to next evaluation steps. Proposals that have been administratively rejected will not proceed further and are advised to be resubmitted to another cut-off taking into consideration any comments provided by the Peer-Review office.

  2. Technical Assessment

    The Hosting Entities evaluate the technical feasibility of the proposals submitted to their systems. The proposals can be technically accepted, conditionally accepted or rejected. In case the proposal has been rejected, it will still proceed to the further steps of the evaluation.

  3. Rapporteur Reporting

    Proposals are distributed according to their research topics to the respective Domain Panels. The Domain Panel Chair assigns proposals to 2 panel members (Rapporteurs) to evaluate the proposals per 3 set criteria: Excellence, Innovation and Impact, Quality and Efficiency of the Implementation.

  4. Domain Panel Meeting

    Every Domain Panel involved in a cut-off will discuss separately proposals in their domain and provide: a consolidated scoring per proposal according to the mentioned criteria, a ranking of the proposals and a resources recommendation per proposal.

  5. Super Panel Meeting

    All proposals are discussed irrespective of their domains. The meeting outputs are: a final scoring per proposal according to the mentioned criteria, an overall ranking of the proposals and a resources recommendation per proposal.

  6. Resource Allocation Panel Meeting

    Taking into consideration the provided ranking of all proposals and the resources recommendation, the HPC resources are officially distributed to proposals. The proposals will be awarded resources according to the recommendations and their respective positions in the ranking list provided by the Access Resource Committee during the Super Panel Meeting. The proposals may be moved to other suitable systems or not be awarded in case the resources have been exhausted on the selected system.

  7. EuroHPC JU Governing Board List Adoption

    The final resources distribution list is forwarded to the EuroHPC JU Governing Board who approves the allocations.

  8. Communication of Results

    The Peer-Review office will communicate the final results to all applicants. They will receive an email with the final decision regarding their proposal; the same outcome can also be seen in the Peer-Review Platform.

  9. Award Acceptance

    The applicants should, if awarded resources, accept the award in the Peer-Review platform. This action will trigger a notification to the Hosting Entities to officially contact the applicants regarding the access to their systems.

A diagram of the Peer-Review process is displayed below:

Regular Access Workflow

All parties involved in the Peer-Review process have to comply with the PRACE Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy.

Evaluation Criteria and the Scoring System

The proposals are evaluated according to three criteria:

  • Excellence – aims to evaluate the scientific quality and merit of the project. This criterion is weighted more for proposals submitted to the Scientific Access Track.
  • Innovation and Impact – intends to assess the innovative nature, the potential impacts and contributions of the project. This criterion is weighted more for proposals submitted to the Industry and Public Administration Access Tracks.
  • Quality and Efficiency of the Implementation – intends to evaluate the quality and feasibility of the work plan in order to deliver the project successfully.

The scores are given per criterion and can be decimal numbers from 0-5. In order to pass the evaluation, each criterion must be graded with a minimum 3, but the overall score sum of all three criteria must be minimum 10.

For applying to the Regular Access mode, the applicants should also consult the following information:

  • Regular Access Mode – Open & Closed cut-offs – provides a list of open and closed cut-offs, and for each call a document defining the scope of the call, available systems and resources, eligibility criteria, specific information for applicants and deadlines.
  • EuroHPC JU resources – includes more information about the systems offered within the EuroHPC JU Calls for Proposals.
  • Online proposal submission – accessible through the PRACE Peer-Review Tool. This set of web-forms allows you to create, edit and submit applications. Make sure to carefully read and follow the instructions on this webpage and to provide all mandatory information (marked with an asterisk *). Applicants are strongly encouraged to create a proposal as early as possible and closely look at what is requested, since it may take some time to prepare or gather part of that information. Please note that a proposal has to be submitted online before the cut-off date to be included in the Peer-Review process of that submission period.