Download Expert Reviews Project CARTHER Excellence: Strengths: This is a

Expert Reviews
Project CARTHER
Excellence:
Strengths:




This is a highly innovative project which relies on carbon based fluorescent nanomaterials as
markers of cancerous cells for diagnostics and therapy.
The multidiscipliarity nature of the proposed research has been demonstrated as it involves
advanced knowledge in physics, chemistry, biology and nanomaterials.
Knowledge sharing among the participants in light of the research and innovation objectives is
clearly described and the expertise, contribution, and complementarity of each partner are
identified.
The exchange programme is suitable and consists of training courses, industry - academia
secondments, common research activities, regular meetings and internal workshops.
Weaknesses:



The main objective of the experimental study is defined only in a generic manner.
There is not a critical discussion as to why four different types of nanomaterials should be
investigated.
The current state of the art has not been thoroughly reviewed.
Impact
Strengths:




The project contribution to realising the potential of individuals and to providing new skills and
career perspectives in the fields of nanomaterials, bio-imaging and cancer therapy is high. The
researchers will gain experience in a multi-disciplinary academic and industrial environment.
The potential impact on competitiveness and innovation in the field of bio-functionalised
nanomaterials at the European and global levels is convincing, in particular in reducing
healthcare costs and in developing cutting edge technologies in nanomaterial synthesis,
characterisation, and bio-imaging.
The measures proposed for dissemination and communication, including public engagement,
are convincing and clearly described.
IPR issues and exploitation of the potential project results by the private sector and academia
are adequately addressed.
Weaknesses:

No clear provisions are made for the organisation of an international workshop towards the end
of the project.
Implementation
Strengths:






The project work plan is coherent and structured into work packages consistent with the overall
project objectives.
Milestones and deliverables are adequate to monitor the intermediate targets and long-term
objectives.
The allocation of resources for the different work packages is appropriate.
The proposed management, including quality management, and coordination structure for the
project are clearly described.
The participating institutions have the required infrastructure and experimental resources
required to carry out the proposed project.
The competences, experience and complementarity of the participating organisations and
institutional commitment are clearly described.
Weaknesses:


The risks that might endanger the scientific project objectives are not sufficiently addressed and
the measures to mitigate such risks are not clear. This is particularly important in this research
project as it is based on relatively new ideas and developments.
The description of what will be done in each work package is not sufficiently detailed.
Project CARDIALLY
Excellence
Strengths:



The proposal is innovation driven and of scientific relevance. The research proposed is of high
quality and the methodology is appropriate.
The scientific expertise of the partners is very relevant to the proposal, as demonstrated from
their scientific publications.
The applicants describe in a credible way the quality and benefits of their interactions within the
consortium. Partners are highly complementary, and their roles are well distributed.
Weaknesses:

The actions for knowledge transfer are broadly addressed, and not specific to the innovation
objectives of the proposal
Impact
Strengths:



The benefits for individuals in relation to career perspectives, skills and working conditions are
properly and convincingly addressed.
The applicants describe in a credible way the measures to achieve a long-lasting and strong
partnership.
Outreach activities are very well addressed.
Weaknesses

There are no major weaknesses detected on impact in the proposal.
Implementation
Strengths:




The work plan is excellent. The technical tasks propose high quality research in a proper
timeframe.
The management structures are very well articulated.
The infrastructure available is suitable for the proposed work.
The competences and experience of the various partners are highly relevant. There are clear
complementarities among the partners.
Weaknesses:

The risk analysis is broadly presented, and not specific to the work proposed.
Project MAKERS
Excellence
Strengths:



The research is credible with multidisciplinary character and clearly stated objectives. The
project credibly suggests generating a set of recommendations for an improvement of the EU
industrial policy based on novel research.
The proposed research methodology is adequate and is very well described.
The project gives sufficient details about the mechanism of interaction among partners and the
potential for achievement of synergy effect.
Weaknesses:


The presentation of the sharing of knowledge lacks some details regarding the planned
activities.
The project does not give full description of how the economic sectors were selected.
Impact
Strengths:




The participating institutions have demonstrated that they will provide good working conditions.
The project offers very good opportunities for career development and skills improvement for
all researchers.
The project offers suitable opportunities for an efficient communication of the study’s findings.
The mechanism for transfer of knowledge among the participants is adequately presented and
there is convincing evidence about the benefits for the involved institutions and globally
Weaknesses


The future collaboration is not sufficiently described to fully convince about sustainability
beyond EU funding.
The project does not explain sufficiently the division of responsibilities among partners for the
dissemination of the project's outcome.
Implementation
Strengths:



The work plan is structured adequately. The allocation of tasks and resources is appropriate and
is well matched with competences of partners.
The institutional environment is suitable for the successful execution of the project.
The project presents strong institutional commitments
Weaknesses:


The proposed management structure is insufficiently detailed.
The institutional complementarity is not sufficiently described in the proposal.
Project REDOXIT
Excellence
Strengths:




The research objectives of the project are clear.
The proposal exploits recent developments in all partners and seeks to capitalise on these by
bringing together analytical science, cell biology, animal models and drug development.
The proposed experimental work is well supported by citations and preliminary work reported
by the applicants and has a very high quality.
This is a timely and innovative multi-disciplinary proposal to develop fundamental
understanding of a potentially very interesting therapeutic target.

The quality of knowledge sharing among the participants in light of the research objectives is
very good
Weaknesses:


The type of the interaction between the participating organizations is not well addressed. The
experience of each participant, what exactly would be transferred per secondments and
examples of knowledge return is not convincingly presented.
Progress beyond the state of the art is not clearly spelled out.
Impact
Strengths:



The potential of enhancing research- and innovation-related human resources is high and is
convincing from the concrete examples that were presented.
The effectiveness of the proposed measures for communication and results dissemination is
well presented and is very good. There are some project-specific and concrete examples, being
workshops one of them.
The development of new and lasting research collaborations is sufficiently presented and these
are sound. There are some concrete examples of potential new collaboration and the proposal
well addresses their self-sustainability beyond the lifetime of the project.
Weaknesses:



The potential contribution to the improvement of the research and innovation potential in
Europe, has only been addressed in general terms.
The commercial exploitation strategy of the results is not well elaborated.
The benefits from training the ESRs is not clear for all partners
Implementation
Strengths:




The project organisation and management structures are well outlined and their quality is very
good for the overall feasibility of the project.
The adequacy of the work plan and the activities proposed to reach the project objectives are
well presented and are sound. Moreover, a list of high quality deliverables is provided.
The institutional environment is very good. Good evidence of previous relevant experience,
participant expertise and the supervisory record of senior researcher is given.
The financial management strategy has been mentioned in sufficient detail and is adequate.
Weaknesses:

The progress monitoring mechanisms of the proposal are not sufficient.

The nature of potential risks has not been addressed in detail.
Project SOLIRING
Excellence
Strengths:




The project is of high quality, innovative and credible. Novel technological concepts will be
explored associated with very recent scientific discoveries in fundamental knowledge in an area
of photonics, which is very promising for novel devices and functionalities.
Strong multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary aspects of the research will be performed that
span areas of applied mathematics, physics, advanced computation, metamaterials and
nanophotonics.
A good coupling to implementation in industry in the field of nonlinear optics is planned, with
investigating different schemes of nanophotonic assemblies and carefully examining potential
applications in the commercial sector and Aston University group contributing with specially
equipped Labs.
High quality of the knowledge sharing is planned between the Project members being at the top
level of the international level within the domain of miniaturized frequency comb systems, some
of them are pioneers of the field.
Weaknesses:
-None
Impact
Strengths:




The proposal provides a very convincing Sec.3.2 on potential benefits to be derived from
improved optics/photonics technology thus improving innovation potential at the European and
global levels.
Enhancing the research and innovation potential at the global (and European) level by
secondments to and from the University pioneers in nano photonics. The project will enhance
the ability of the ESRs through productive collaborations, and simultaneous ER and ESR
secondments to one host organisation.
At the end of the project, the participating ESRs will become competitive not only in academic
environment, but also in industry.
A good dissemination plan is envisaged via open access papers, talks, conferences. Added value
is brought by the plan to disseminate the emerging results via presentations to industrial
representatives of small and medium size companies. Consortium Workshops (4 in 36 months),
regular meetings (>6 a year), and a web-portal of the project are convincingly described to
provide a high clarity and quality knowledge sharing between the participants
Weaknesses:


There is an imbalance between ERs and ESRs in the proposal.
Only general way towards protection of intellectual property rights is discussed, no particular
strategy is proposed.
Implementation
Strengths:






The essential work plan is well developed and clearly presented, including precise definitions of
tasks, objectives and deliverables.
The management structure is appropriate and contains several actions designed to maintain a
high quality of research and exchange of knowledge. This is further enhanced by a very detailed
allocation of task and resources, by carefully verifying all patentable results, and by assigning to
each incoming seconded personnel a personal tutor in the host organization.
The high level competence and large research experience of the participating organizations is
presented.
There is evidence that the participating institutions offer appropriate academic infrastructures
for performing the planned research also for receiving several secondments at the same time.
The institutional environment described in the proposal is optimal for this project.
Expertise is shared in very complementary manner.
Weaknesses:


No specific action for gender equality aspects is given.
The risk plan is focused on WP2, while other are neglected.