What will the voting of the EOSC Working Group (WG) look like? Will ballot papers be used and if so, what will they look like, and will they be identical to the fields in the Opinion of the EOSC CZ WG form?
The implementation and organization of voting will follow the established practices of each WG (including the tools used), which may be adjusted for this purpose. The basic framework is defined in the Methodology for Issuing an Opinion of the EOSC CZ WG on Mini‑Projects (can be seen here).
Will the voting be preceded by presentations of the mini-projects?
The vote is preceded by a meeting of the relevant EOSC CZ WG (in person or online), at which the applicants present the outputs of individual mini-projects with regard to the evaluation criteria. The meetings for each of the Open Science II Mini-Projects Call must take place separately and within the period (one month) designated for the evaluation of outputs.
When can comments on the criteria be raised—only during voting or before it?
We can imagine creating some online space (Forms, Slido, etc.) where comments and suggestions on individual requests could be collected prior to the actual vote. The specific setup of this process is up to each EOSC WG based on its usual practice.
What is the procedure if comments are raised during voting?
It can be assumed that comments on the criteria will be rare (they would have to arise from discrepancies between the description of the planned output and its summary - i.e., the main concrete characteristics of the planned output).
We recommend that if more than half of the votes are “YES without comments” and participation is at least 30%, the remaining comments should not be discussed further.
If any comments arise from the Opinion of the EOSC WG, the applicant is obliged to incorporate them into the mini‑project application, and the evaluators will assess whether they have been adequately addressed.
How should any comments be included in the Opinion of the EOSC WG?
Any comments are entered in the Request for Opinion of the EOSC CZ WG form (Annex No. 4 Request for Opinion of the EOSC CZ WG) under point 2, in the “NO” option as justification, thus making the WG’s consent conditional.
A requirement to revise criteria (NO + comment in point 2) does not mean that the overall Opinion is negative; the decisive part is point 1 of the Opinion (point 2 represents a reservation with an obligation to modify the application).
Is it always necessary to justify a negative opinion to an output?
A negative opinion must always be justified. See the form section:
The planned output does not meet this criterion ……… and this is due to………
The applicant must remove any planned output that was not recommended and submit the application accordingly. All other planned outputs that receive a positive opinion may be included in the mini‑project application.
What is meant by the eligibility condition for mini‑projects in Call no. 1, where the eligible activity is the creation of outputs that build upon the planned outputs and/or supported activities of the Open Science II project, and significantly extend or complement those outputs and/or supported activities?
This requirement must be interpreted based on the Annex no. 7 of the Call (Annex no. 7 – Extract Key Activities and Main Planned Outputs) where the project activities and outputs are described. Outputs submitted in this Call must build upon or extend those outputs/activities. The applicant must be aware of this condition and reflect the connection, extension, etc., in the description of the planned output.
Contact
If you have any questions, please contact us at info@eosc.cz.