ATIGEs 2024

Timelines

Anticipated dates

  • February           Call open
  • March 30          Deadline for submission
  • April-May          Evaluation of the proposa
  • June                 Interview of the applicant -> Notification letter
  • July                  Grant signature with the hosting institution
  • September        Latest date to start the project 

Selection Process

Each application is composed of the applicant profile and the project proposal; both parts are considered as a whole document that will be sent to independent experts for assessment.
 
The assessment will be based on objective criteria scored from 1 to 5 as shown in the tables below and the independent experts will provide recommendation on the funding. The scientific committee of Genopole* will proceed to the ranking and to the final decision based on the expert assessment reports.
 
*The scientific committee of Genopole is composed of scientific leaders from Inserm, CEA, CNRS, Universités Paris-Saclay and Evry-Paris Saclay and from the Centre hospitalier Sud-Francilien.
 

Criteria

 
Evaluation of the research
Research project S&T Quality
  • Scientific and technical merit
  • Clarity of objectives
  • Originality of proposed research and awareness of current debates and state-of-the-art
Feasibility
  • Comprehensive and appropriate theoretical and methodological framework
  • Feasibility within given time-frame
  • Budget evaluation
Impact
  • Recognition of anticipated impact of work
  • Publication, dissemination and exploitation plan
  • Openness to interdisciplinary collaboration
  • Openness to international collaboration
Evaluation of the applicant
Applicant qualification Experience
  • Quality of the CV
  • Research track-record
  • Training
  • Awards & Funding
  • Capacity to conduct the research project
  • Statements of recommendation
  • Previous / current partnerships and international collaborations
 
 

Scoring

Scoring chart
5
Outstanding  The proposal stands out with exceptional quality and meets all relevant aspects of the criteria
4 Very good  The proposal is strong and meets the criteria well. Any shortcomings are minor
3 Good 
The proposal addresses the criteria well, although improvements in some elements are called for
2 Satisfactory 
The proposal broadly addresses the criteria. It has not been fully elaborated and there are several weaknesses
1 Poor  The proposal has serious inherent weaknesses and /or fails to address the criteria