Principles for peer-review
All proposals shall be treated equally.
Scientific expert evaluators will only receive proposals that have been checked by UniverSud Paris administration for their compliance with formal eligibility criteria shortly after the meeting of the steering committee which designate the scientific expert evaluators for a proposal.
Scientific expert evaluators shall prevent themselves from evaluating proposals for which a conflict of interest may arise. They must inform UniverSud Paris administration of any conflict of interest within 7 days from receipt of the files corresponding to the proposals allocated to them by the Steering committee.
Each proposal shall be assessed only on the basis of the published evaluation criteria and in consideration of the average level of experience expected from researchers at a defined level of experience.
Scientific expert evaluators shall follow the specific guidelines for peer-reviewers established by UniverSud Paris for each specific call for applicants.
Peer-review shall be based solely upon the information contained in the proposal.
Scientific expert evaluators must be able to work in the English language.
Scientific expert evaluators work at home independently from each other. Scientific expert evaluators shall not communicate with each other unless they are specifically invited to do so by the President of UniverSud Paris in case of major discrepancy between evaluation reports and marks given by the different scientific expert evaluators on a proposal.
Evaluation Summary reports and marks shall be returned by scientific expert evaluators to UniverSud Paris within the deadline indicated in their appointment letter (scientific expert evaluators shall be given at least 2 weeks to evaluate proposals coming from one specific call)