Evaluation criteria
The evaluation will ensure that the Evaluation Panel identify the most relevant candidates based on:
1. Prior research experience, research results such as publications record (mandatory) (peer-reviewed journal articles, patents, books etc.),
2. Documented independence and leadership qualities,
3. Ability to acquire impact of transnational and/or inter-sectoral mobility
4. Documented management potential of the candidate, such as working with larger projects both in terms of research and financial managements.
The scoring scales
0. Fail The applicant fails to address the 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 applicant broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses.
3. Good The applicant addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary.
4. Very Good The applicant addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible.
5. Ecellent The applicant successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
Primary criteria | Brief explanation | Step 1 | Interview | Step 2 |
Applicant’s academic excellence | Academic achievements (publications; patents; inventions etc.) | x |
| x |
Ability to discuss research within the field | Scientific paper will be discussed/presented |
| x |
|
Applicant’s interest in commercialization/implementation | Previous experience with innovations/science fairs/public awareness initiatives etc. | x | x | x |
Previous working experience | Working experience before and during academic studies, laboratory experience etc. | x | x | x |
Letter of motivation | Applicants capability to exemplify how previous research experience and future research ideas relate to the specific call | x |
|
|
Ability to contribute to the research area | Independent and creative thinking connected to previous research experience |
| x |
|
Proposed project | Relevance of project for the programme and ability to perform the project within 2 years |
|
| x |
Sub-criteria |
|
|
|
|
Quality of written application or spoken language during interview | Quality of written and oral reasoning | x | x | x |
Quality of reasoning | The ability of critically thinking | x | x | x |
Motivation | Engagement for the CanFaster postdoc programme | x | x | x |
Generation of societal impact, outreach/public awareness activities |
| x | x | x |
| International profile and mobility | Willingness and presumably ability to adapt to another country | x | x | x |