Thank you for reviewing the applications for the ESR Research Seed Grants Global 2022. 

Please keep in mind that the purpose of this program is to stimulate and provide funding for innovative projects and pilot studies in Eastern Europe, Central Asia or Africa that will subsequently lead to larger studies and further funding applications. Please be aware that proposals will be evaluated as they were submitted. There will be no possibility for significant changes to content or budget.

Evaluation and scoring

Scores must be in the range 0-5. Evaluators are asked to score proposals as they were submitted, rather than on their potential if certain changes were to be made. Please indicate identified significant shortcomings by awarding a lower score. You may also provide a comment further detailing identified shortcomings.

Project proposals must align with one of the ESR Research Seed Grants Global thematic areas. The funding priorities 2022 are for research in enhancing quality in radiological imaging and interventional radiology and in value-based radiology with a focus on (but not limited to) ultrasound, CT, and conventional imaging. Topics include, but are not limited to:

Enhance quality in radiological imaging and interventional radiology: radiation protection, protocol optimisation, standardisation of imaging/reporting, quality assurance, clinical audit, and/or safety.
Value-based radiology: health care evaluation, optimal/efficient imaging strategies, patient experiences/preferences/outcomes, cost-effectiveness, diagnostic accuracy, and/or comparison of modalities.

Applicants could request seed grants amounting to €14,000 for a period not to exceed 24 months. Proposals must detail how awarded funding will be allocated for the duration of the project, and how the project is envisaged to continue once the funding period ends. In total, up to 3 project will be funded.

Proposals are to be evaluated based on the following selection criteria:

- Clarity and significance of the rationale
- Objectives are in line with the scope of the fund
- Originality and soundness of hypotheses
- Quality and suitability of the implementation methods
- Feasibility of timeline and cost-effectiveness of the budgetary plan
- Expected impact and prospects for continuation of the project beyond the term of the seed grant

     

    0 — The rationale of the proposal cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information.1 — Poor. The rationale is inadequately described and/or shows serious weaknesses.2 — Fair. The rationale is broadly addressed, but there are significant weaknesses.3 — Good. The rationale is addressed adequately and sound, but a number of shortcomings are present.4 — Very Good. The rationale is addressed well and well-founded, but a small number of shortcomings are present.5 — Excellent. The rationale successfully addresses all relevant aspects. Any shortcomings are minor.

     

    0 — The objectives and hypothesis of the proposal cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information.1 — Poor. The objectives and hypothesis are inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2 — Fair. The objectives and hypothesis are broadly addressed, but there are significant weaknesses.3 — Good. The objectives and hypothesis are adequately addressed, but a number of shortcomings are present.4 — Very Good. The objectives and hypothesis are clear and pertinent, but a small number of shortcomings are present.5 — Excellent. The objectives and hypothesis are very clear and pertinent. Any shortcomings are minor.

     

    0 — The methodology of the proposal cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information.1 — Poor. The methodology is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2 — Fair. The proposal broadly addresses the methodology, but there are significant weaknesses.3 — Good. The methodology is adequately addressed, but a number of shortcomings are present related to soundness, feasibility and credibility.4 — Very Good. The methodology is addressed very well, but a small number of shortcomings related to either soundness, feasibility or credibility are present.5 — Excellent. The methodology is thoroughly addressed and presents a sound, feasible and credible implementation. Any shortcomings are minor.

     

    0 — The timeline and budget of the proposal cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information.1 — Poor. The timeline and budget are inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2 — Fair. The timeline and budget are broadly addressed, but there are significant weaknesses related to the quality and effectiveness of the work plan.3 — Good. The timeline and budget are addressed adequately, but a number of shortcomings related to the quality and effectiveness of the work plan are present.4 — Very Good. The timeline and budget are addressed well, but a small number of shortcomings related to either the quality or the effectiveness of the work plan are present.5 — Excellent. The timeline and budget are addressed very well, and the work plan is of high quality. Any shortcomings are minor.

     

    0 — The impact of the proposal cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information.1 — Poor. The impact is inadequately addressed, the expected impact on the field is low or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2 — Fair. The impact is broadly addressed, but potential impact on the field is not demonstrated well and there are significant weaknesses or shortcomings.3 — Good. The impact is addressed adequately and demonstrates potential impact on the field, but a number of shortcomings are present.4 — Very Good. The proposal demonstrates clear potential impact on the field well, but a small number of shortcomings are present.5 — Excellent. The proposal clearly demonstrates a high potential impact. Any shortcomings are minor.