Global Access Fund Evaluation Criteria

Review and Selection Process: 

The selection and evaluation process for GAF funding consists of three stages. The first stage consists of the GAF committee reviewing all proposals and taking a decision on which ones are eligible to be sent out for review. At the second stage, two reviewers from the global community will review the proposal. Based on their reviews, the GAF committee will decide in the third stage which proposals will be put forward to the DataCite Board for funding. Successful applications that pass all three stages will receive an award notification. Applicants whose applications are rejected will receive feedback from the committee.

Initial review by committee

  1. Is all the required information available for the proposal to be reviewed?
  2. Does this proposal meet the eligibility criteria?
  3. Is this proposal in scope for the  Global Access Fund?
  4. For demonstrators:
    1. Does the applicant have the skills and institutional support necessary to execute the project?
    2. Is sustainability sufficiently addressed in the proposal?

Evaluation criteria for reviewers

Relevance:
The proposal needs to be relevant and aligned with at least one of the three areas of the GAF Call for proposals.

Feasibility:
The proposal should present a feasible project plan within the funding timeline, with a reasonable budget, clearness on the expected outcomes of the grant. It should provide information on the relevant applicants’ experience and skills as well as motivation.

Impact:  
The proposal should make it clear what it would mean for the community or region it serves in terms of measurable and significant benefits.

Review Rubric

Relevance

Feasibility

Impact and scalability

Numerical Score

To evaluate quantitatively each question or statement. It is recommended to provide a space for qualitative assessment.

ScoreDescription
1Low quality, does not present sufficient evidence or meet the requirements at a minimal level
2Acceptable quality, but with substantial revisions could be high quality
3High quality, with some suggestions
4Exceptional quality, without further suggestions

Finally, would you recommend funding this project? Please tell us why:

Examples for each category:

Outreach and engagement

Open Infrastructure

Demonstrators