Scoring Criteria

The following criteria should be used by all BES Review College members when asked to score a BES grant application.

Reviewers will be asked to provide a score for Scientific Excellence (1-5) and a score for the Potential of the Candidate (1-5). These two scores will then total the Overall Score for the application (2-10).

Full details on each of the grant schemes, including their objectives and requirements, can be found on the grants pages of the BES website.

Scientific Excellence:

5 – Exceptional

• There is an outstanding alignment with the grants objectives and requirements
• The proposed work is at the leading edge internationally
• The work is likely to lead to significant advance in scientific understanding
• The objectives of the proposed work are achievable and this is supported by an outstanding, highly appropriate research plan and methodology
• The work represents outstanding value for money and all resources requested are completely justified
• A clear understanding of the potential impact of the work is demonstrated
• Outreach activities proposed are appropriate to the work, use both routine and novel ways to engage end-users, and are likely to generate very significant potential for impact

4 – Excellent

• There is an excellent alignment with the grants objectives and requirements
• The proposed work is at a high international standard
• The work will make a significant contribution to the advance in scientific understanding
• The objectives of the proposed work are achievable and this is supported by an excellent, highly appropriate research plan and methodology
• The work represents excellent value for money and all resources requested are completely justified
• A clear understanding of the potential impact of the work is demonstrated
• Outreach activities proposed are appropriate to the work, use both routine and novel ways to engage end-users, and are likely to generate significant potential for impact

3 – Very Good

• There is very good alignment with the grants objectives and requirements
• The proposed work is internationally competitive
• The work will make a contribution to the advance in scientific understanding
• The objectives of the proposed work are achievable and this is supported by a very good, appropriate research plan and methodology
• The work represents very good value for money and most resources requested are justified
• An understanding of the potential impact of the work is demonstrated
• Outreach activities proposed are appropriate to the work, use both routine and novel ways to engage end-users, and are likely to generate potential for impact

2 – Good

• There is some alignment with the grants objectives and requirements
• The proposed work has merit but isn’t internationally competitive
• The work will lead to only a minor advance in scientific understanding
• The objectives of the proposed work are mostly achievable and this is supported by a good, appropriate research plan and methodology
• The work represents reasonable value for money and some of the resources requested are justified
• Some understanding of the potential impact of the work is demonstrated
• Outreach activities proposed are appropriate to the work, use either routine or novel ways to engage end-users, and may generate potential for impact

1 – Not competitive

• There is little or no alignment with the grants objectives and requirements
• The proposed work potentially has some merit but isn’t internationally competitive
• The work is unlikely to advance scientific understanding
• The objectives of the proposed work are not achievable and is supported by a poor research plan and methodology
• The work represents poor value for money and little or none of the resources requested are justified
• Little understanding of the potential impact of the work is demonstrated
• Outreach activities proposed are not appropriate to the work, don’t use either routine or novel ways to engage end-users and are unlikely to generate potential for impact

Potential of the Candidate:

5 – Exceptional

• The applicant has an outstanding proven track record in delivering results of this nature
• The applicant has demonstrated outstanding performance at an international level
• The applicant has surpassed expectation with regards to the required standard in relation to past contributions or future potential

4 – Excellent

• The applicant has an excellent proven track record in delivering results of this nature
• The applicant has demonstrated excellent performance at an international level
• The applicant exceeds the required standard in relation to past contributions or future potential

3 – Very Good

• The applicant has a very good proven track record in delivering results of this nature
• The applicant has demonstrated very high performance at an international level
• The applicant has reached the required standard in relation to past contributions or future potential

2 – Good

• The applicant has a proven track record in delivering results of this nature
• The applicant has demonstrated good performance at a national/international level
• The applicant reaches the required standard in relation to past contributions or future potential

1 – Not Competitive

• The applicant does not have a proven track record in delivering results of this nature
• The applicant has little or no experience of performing at an international level
• The applicant does not reach the required standard in relation to either past contributions or future potential