I.3.10. Preparation and launching of an interdisciplinary research and teaching project Archeooriental Studies – Small Archeooriental Studies, 2nd edition

I. Composition and formation procedure for the selection committee

1. The selection committee is appointed by the IDUB Programme Manager at the request of the Coordinator of the Action.
2. Researchers conducting research in the field of archaeology or oriental studies, holding at least a doctoral degree, and with scientific achievements documented by publications in reputable journals which are indexed in leading databases of scientific papers, may be appointed as members of the committee.
3. The committee is chaired by the Coordinator of the Action.
4. The Chairperson of the selection committee may exclude any member of said committee, in the event of reasonable doubts concerning his or her impartiality and objectivity, with respect to an applicant who is participating in the competition, and particularly if:
   1. the committee member is a spouse, relative, or in-law (up to the second degree) of the applicant;
   2. the committee member is related to a team member through adoption, custody, or guardianship;
   3. the committee member has an existing legal or factual relationship with a team member which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to the committee member’s impartiality.
5. A committee member will inform the selection committee of any special circumstances such as those referred to in point 4 above, before beginning the evaluation process of the applications.
6. A selection committee member who has been excluded from the evaluation process of a given applicant will not take part in scoring that person’s application and will leave the room during the deliberations of the committee. The exclusion of a member of the qualifying team during the scoring of a particular application will be noted in the minutes from the meeting, along with a statement of the reason for that committee member’s exclusion.

II. Rules of conduct for the selection committee

1. Committee meetings are called by the Chairperson of the selection committee.
2. The selection committee deliberates with at least 2/3 of the members’ number present. In the event of reasonable doubts regarding the impartiality and objectivity with regard to a selection committee member in relation to an applicant, the committee will deliberate with the member that the previously-mentioned circumstances concern excluded.
3. The committee may deliberate with the use of electronic communication tools. Members may also participate in meetings via electronic means of communication (teleconference or videoconference). In this case, the provisions of Ordinance No. 94 of the Rector of the University of Warsaw from 12 May 2020, on the Rules for holding meetings of bodies and collegial entities of the University of Warsaw and other bodies, with the use of electronic communication tools (UW Monitor 2020, item 200).
4. The Chairperson performs a formal evaluation of an application before it is given to the committee. The chairperson will call on the applicant to complete the application within 7 days of submitting the application. The Applicant has 7 days to complete the application. An application that does not meet the requirements specified in the competition notice will not be assessed.
5. Each member of the Committee awards each application from 0 to 100 points, assessing:
   1. the scientific value of the project (50 points),
   2. compliance with the assumptions of the Action and IDUB (https://inicjatywadoskonalosci.uw.edu.pl/en/actions/areas/pob4/) (15 points),
   3. financial efficiency of the project, in particular a favourable proportion of financial outlays to the planned scientific results (15 points),
   4. project feasibility, considering the achievements of the Applicant to date (20 points).
6. After the meeting, the committee draws up a ranking list based on the awarded points. The Chairperson of the committee creates a ranking list. The ranking list includes:
   1. the starting and finishing dates of the round of evaluation, the date of the list, the number of submitted applications;
   2. the number of the application’s position on the ranking list;
   3. the title of the project;
   4. the names and surnames of applicants;
   5. the final result of the application expressed in points;
   6. information on the amount applied for;
   7. information on the recommended amount;
   8. the threshold of points needed to qualify an application for funding.
7. The committee’s score is the average of the scores given by individual members. Applications which received at least 70 of the points possible will be placed on the list. Applications with lower scores will not be eligible for funding. In the event that the funds allocated to the competition are not sufficient to cover all of the applications with more than 70% of the points possible, funds will be awarded in the order of their ranking.
8. The committee may grant the full amount of funding to the applications from the ranked list or reduce it to no less than 60% of the funding requested.
9. Administrative and technical support for the selection committee is provided by the Coordinator of Action III.
10. The function of secretary of the selection committee is fulfilled by a member of the committee, appointed by the Coordinator of the Action.
11. Minutes of the selection committee meetings are prepared by the secretary of the selection committee.
12. Minutes from the selection committee meetings may be signed with signatures obtained by circulation, as well as electronic signatures. An accepted form of signature may be a confirmation submitted by University email (on the basis of Ordinance No. 279 of the Rector of the University of Warsaw from 10.12.2020).
13. A copy of the minutes, signed by the Chairperson and the remaining members of the committee who took part in the meeting, will be forwarded to the Coordinating Office of IDUB for archiving, within 14 days of the closing date of the competition .

III. Information and recommendations for the selection committee

Examples of project categories

• short research internship (e.g., to complete an article or grant application);
• support for publications in leading journals and publishing houses (typesetting, proofreading, purchase of copyrights for illustrations);
• organisation of conferences, workshops, and seminars;
• participation in an international scientific conference, the result of which will be a highly scored publication;
• organisation of sessions as part of scientific conferences;
• visits by foreign researchers.

IV. Evaluation criteria for applications

Total score: 0-100 points (average of the ratings given by the committee members)

• scientific value of the project (50 points)
  • outstanding (40-50)
  • very high (30-39)
  • high (20-29)
  • average (10–19)
  • poor (0–9)
• compliance with the assumptions of IDUB (https://inicjatywadoskonalosci.uw.edu.pl/en/actions/areas/pob4/) and the terms of the competition (15 points)
  • outstanding (12–15)
  • very good (9-11)
  • good (6-8)
  • average (3-5)
  • poor (0-2)
• financial effectiveness of the project (scientific effect vs the expenditures) (15 points)
  • outstanding (12–15)
  • very good (9-11)
  • good (6-8)
  • average (3-5)
  • poor (0-2)
• project feasibility in the context of the Applicant’s competences and achievements (20 points)*
  • very high (16-20)
  • high (12-15)
  • good (8-11)
  • average (4-7)
  • poor (0-3)

* In 2022, considering the conditions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

V. Eligible and ineligible costs

Ineligible costs

• costs of ensuring, creating, adjusting, or maintaining infrastructure;
• costs of hiring employees, remuneration for the project manager;
• expenses related to completing the application for funding;
• double-funded expenditures;
• expenses not included in the approved application for funding;
• expenditures incurred before the date of the funding award decision.

Eligible costs

Costs may be considered eligible if all of the following conditions are met:

• it was actually incurred during the period when the project was taking place;
• it complies with applicable laws;
• it has been included in the approved application;
• it is necessary and was incurred in relation to the implementation of the project;
• has been made in a transparent, rational, and effective manner;
• it has been duly documented;
• it was incurred in accordance with the provisions of Public Procurement Law;
• it was incurred in accordance with Art. 44 section 3 of the Public Finance Act;
• it is not an ineligible cost.

Eligible costs are those consistent with applicable accounting principles, the principles of sound financial management, and applied practices (accounting policy).

• download (MS Word, < 1 MB)

• download (MS Word, < 1 MB)