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

• The proposal formulates clear objectives that are aligned with the funding priorities for this call.
• The proposed work is open: the project concerns/works with not-for-profit and non-commercial platforms and services, employs open standards and protocols, and encourages use and re-use of content, data, and underlying code with minimal restriction.
• The proposal benefits a currently underrepresented community within a relevant region

Feasibility

• The proposed goals and outcomes of the project are reasonably achievable and in concordance with the suggested timeline and budget.
• The proposed timeline does not exceed the lapse of one year for its execution and completion. 
• The proposed budget is adequate and reasonable for the project and the amount requested do not exceed the cap of 10,000 EUR (for Outreach and engagement projects)/ 20,000 EUR (for Infrastructure projects)/ 50,000 (for Demonstrators) EUR 
• The project applicants show careful and thorough understanding of the skills and resources needed for the project, demonstrate that the applicants have skills that align, and are aware of potential challenges.

Impact and scalability

• The proposal clearly articulates the benefits for the target communities, in alignment with each one of the focus areas. 
• For demonstrators: The proposal clearly aims to benefit a broad community (national, regional, disciplinary etc.)
• For demonstrators: The proposal has the potential to grow and expand over time and it is addressed in the proposal (mostly for demonstrators).

Numerical Score

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

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

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

Examples for each category:

Outreach and engagement

• Relevance:
  A good proposal should be aligned with the area goal. E.g. the proposal should focus on increasing awareness of PID infrastructure and DataCite services in the context of open science, rather than focus on open science in general.
• Feasibility:
  A good proposal should include clear and achievable deliverables and timelines within the project time.
• Impact:
  A good proposal should include deliverables that have a clear positive impact on the community and can be reused by multiple communities.

Open Infrastructure

• Relevance:
  Infrastructure proposals should present a solid technical and organizational foundation and be designed to function optimally within the targeted region or community in the context of the program. E.g. the proposed infrastructure, such as repositories, integrators, visualization, statistics or metadata enrichment tools, should focus on how it will enable and improve the (local, regional) adoption of DataCite infrastructure and related services.
• Feasibility:
  A good infrastructure proposal should be flexible and capable of accommodating increasing demand and have the potential to grow and expand over time. E.g. the proposed infrastructure should present, if applicable, how it will connect with other systems to obtain additional value from DataCite infrastructure,and expand to other local, regional contexts.
• Impact: 
  A good proposal should provide immediate benefit to the target community, e.g. a DataCite API plugin for a repository system. 

Demonstrators

• Relevance:
  Demonstrators’ proposals should clearly focus on one of the areas (local infrastructure, international infrastructure, indigenous knowledge). A good proposal should have well-defined goals that effectively serve the target communities.
• Feasibility:
  While the proposal should be sufficiently ambitious to qualify as a demonstrator project, it should be possible to deliver the project in a timely manner so tangible outcomes can be demonstrated within one year.
• Impact:
  Demonstrators’ proposals should aim to have a higher impact than the other two areas. This means to benefit a wider community (e.g. a whole country, region, alliance of entities,  rather than a single institution).