External Evaluation. In cases involving tenure and promotion to Associate or (Full) Professor, the quality and significance of the work must be evaluated by full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members of the department as well as the Department Chairperson, or in academic units without Chairpersons, the Xxxx. In addition, the department must solicit evaluations from acknowledged scholars and practitioners in the discipline of the candidate at other institutions, nationally or internationally. The materials submitted for external review shall include, within reasonable quantitative limits set by the Chair, all those selected by the faculty member. These scholars and practitioners should be at “arm’s length” with the candidate and be capable of providing an objective, informed assessment of the candidate’s work. Typically the external evaluators will have an academic rank equal to or above the rank of the promotion sought. Evaluators will be selected according to procedures outlined in department or school RPT guidelines. Whatever procedures are adopted, candidates will be given an opportunity to object, in writing, to proposed evaluators for cause, meaning actual bias or prejudice toward the candidate or lack of qualifications to review the candidate’s record. The candidate also has the responsibility to communicate to the Chair or Xxxx in writing any factor that might prejudice the “arm’s length” standing. The authority to name the final list of evaluators rests with the Chairperson or Xxxx, but in cases where the Chair or Xxxx chooses evaluators challenged for cause by the candidate, he or she must provide a written statement explaining why he/she did not sustain the written objections of the candidate. The final list of evaluators must be chosen in a way that ensures that the candidate cannot identify who has been asked to serve as an external evaluator. An “arm’s length” evaluator is a person who is not compromised in his or her ability to provide an objective evaluation of the professional performance and reputation of the individual being evaluated. The following are examples of the professional or personal relationships that are commonly perceived to put in question the objectivity of an external evaluator: • having acted as the thesis or dissertation advisor for the candidate • having been a faculty or student colleague at a previous institution • having been a co-investigator on grants, a co-author on publications or a co-inventor of intellectual property • havi...
External Evaluation. (1) The Xxxx/Administrator, in consultation with the applicant’s Chair (where applicable), will select three (3) external referees to provide evaluations of the applicant. If the Xxxx/Administrator is unable to agree to at least three (3) of the referees nominated by the applicant, the applicant may submit a supplementary list of names that the Xxxx/Administrator is prepared to use to meet the requirement of at least three (3) referees. Alternatively, the applicant may agree to a mutually acceptable roster from a pool of names submitted by the applicant, the Xxxx/Administrator and the Chair/Director. All of the nominees must, in any case, be acceptable to the applicant.
(2) The Xxxx/Administrator shall confirm that the referees will be prepared to provide an evaluation of the Member's research.
(3) Immediately upon receiving such confirmation, the Xxxx/Administrator shall forward to each referee a copy of the Member's curriculum vitae, the publications (or other substantive evidence) and a letter requesting that the referee evaluate the Member's submitted publications as well as any other published or unpublished research of the Member which is known to the referee. The referee shall be requested to provide his/ her evaluation within four (4) weeks.
(4) Once the Xxxx receives the required letters of appraisal from the external referees, he/she shall forward all applications and supporting documentation to the TPCAC.
External Evaluation. 9.1. IFIs should develop a mechanism for external evaluation of their work – to be conducted by local or international experts. This may take several forms: review of selected pieces of work; annual evaluation of the quality of analysis; a permanent advisory panel or board; or peer review by an IFI in another country.
External Evaluation. 9.1. IFIs should develop a mechanism for external evaluation of their work – to be conducted by local or international experts. This may take several forms: review of selected pieces of work; annual evaluation of the quality of analysis; a permanent advisory panel or board; or peer review by an IFI in another country. Date of information request2 (note 10 working day turnaround): Notes: All information requested by the NI Fiscal Council should be provided at no cost and in a readable format. NI Fiscal Council members and staff have signed agreements indicating that they will adhere to the confidentiality requirements when handling and processing information provided by NICS Departments.
External Evaluation. All applications in the Filtered List of Applicants will be assessed and scored by three INDEPENDENT EXPERTS (from the Experts Panel created by the <IMPACT> Connected Car consortium for each vertical/challenge), on the following criteria: ● Team. ● Business Opportunity. ● Strategic Fit. Additionally, Transversal Criteria, will be taken into account in the final decision to rank finalist proposals, in case of score tying (see description below). A detailed description of the three main evaluation criteria is offered below: ● Market attractiveness: applicants have to demonstrate the level of users, sales and profitability they expect to generate. This can be demonstrated using measurable indicators such as - engaged users, revenues, profits, expected evolution of the services or product. ● Differentiation: applicants have to provide information about the degree of competition for their particular product/service and if the idea is disruptive and breaks the market. i.e. the products/services to be brought to market can be clearly differentiated from the competition. ● Environmental threats: applicants have to assess the external aspects that may have impact in their project idea and how they expect to face it. Additionally, TRANSVERSAL CRITERIA such as ‘Environment and low carbon economy contribution’ (e.g. reduction of greenhouse emissions), ‘Equal Opportunities’ (e.g. gender balance) and ‘Social Impact’ (e.g. job creation) will be taken into account in the final decision. The top-ranked proposals will be included in the “List of Pre-Selected Applicants” and passed to the individual external evaluation to be ranked for the next phase. Ties will be solved using the following criteria, in order: ● Business Opportunity score. ● Team score. ● Strategic Fit Score. ● Contribution to transversal criteria. ● Date of submission: earlier submitted proposals go first. Within this list of Pre-Selected Applicants, each evaluator will rank the application assigning a score from 0 to 7 for each criterion and produce an Individual Evaluation Report. The final score will be calculated as an average of the individual assessments provided by the Evaluators.
External Evaluation. The Joint Master Study Programme will be periodically externally evaluated according to the national legislations.
External Evaluation. In line with good practice an independent external evaluation will be conducted four to five years after the Council’s establishment. This will include progress towards adhering towards the OECD principles and recommendations on way forward to further aspire to these. This evaluation could be undertaken by OECD or another independent Fiscal Institution which is now well established. Key stakeholders, in particular the Finance Committee, would be consulted on the process for appointing an external evaluator, and the Terms of Reference for the evaluation. Source: OECD, 2014, Recommendations on Principles for Independent Fiscal Institutions - xxxxx://xxx.xxxx.xxx/gov/budgeting/OECD-Recommendation-on-Principles-for-Independent- Fiscal-Institutions.pdf The twenty-two Principles for Independent Fiscal Institutions (fiscal councils and independent parliamentary budget offices) proposed below are grouped under nine broad headings: (1) local ownership; (2) independence and non-partisanship; (3) mandate; (4) resources; (5) relationship with the legislature; (6) access to information; (7) transparency; (8) communication; and (9) external evaluation.
External Evaluation. The relevant member of the executive leadership team may approve for an evaluation to be undertaken by an external consultant for a variety reasons, including but not limited to: • the level of the position in the organisational hierarchy • seeking to benchmark positions and/or obtain external relativities • requiring an independent evaluation of job worth and market value • where agreement is not reached by the panel
External Evaluation. In this phase, the Funding Box platform will undertake the task of compiling a list of external independent evaluators with extensive know-how in the field of artificial intelligence and e- health. The ASCAPE Open Call Committee will then appoint a number of evaluators, from the list, that best fit the scope of the ASCAPE project activities. Your project will be evaluated by these experts according to the following award criteria:
External Evaluation. Promotion to the Rank of Professor
(1) Promotion to Professor shall require external evaluation. A Member applying for promotion to Professor shall submit to the Xxxx/Administrator and his/her Chair/Director by August 1:
(a) A completed application on the form set out in the Appendices to the Agreement;
(b) A curriculum vitae in a format appropriate to the applicant’s discipline;
(c) A list of at least five (5) referees external to the University, scholars who are recognized experts in the candidate’s field. At least three (3) of the nominated referees must hold the rank of Professor or, in exceptional circumstances appropriate to the candidate’s field, equivalent stature. Each name must be accompanied by a brief description of the nominee’s qualifications to serve as referee. The list of referees shall be consistent with the University of Winnipeg Conflict of Interest Policy and Article 37 – Conflict of Interest and, further, shall not include individuals who were the candidate’s thesis supervisor, or postdoctoral supervisor; and
(d) Three (3) copies of four (4) publications (or other substantive evidence), as appropriate to the Member’s discipline which the Member considers to be the most important or the most representative of his/her work.
(2) By no later than September 15, the Xxxx/Administrator will select three (3) of these nominees to serve as referees for the purpose of obtaining letters of appraisal. If the Xxxx/Administrator is unable to agree to at least three (3) of the referees nominated by the candidate, the candidate may submit a supplementary list of names which the Xxxx/Administrator is prepared to use to meet the requirement of at least three (3) referees. Alternatively the candidate may agree to a mutually acceptable roster from a pool of names submitted by the candidate, the Xxxx/Administrator and the Chair/Director. All of the nominees must, in any case, be acceptable to the candidate.
(3) The Xxxx/Administrator shall confirm that the referees will be prepared to provide an evaluation of the Member's research. If no confirmation has been received from the referee(s) within ten (10) Working Days, the Xxxx/Administrator within five (5) Working Days shall confirm by email or telephone the availability of the referees or contact the alternate(s) from the list by email or telephone.
(4) Immediately upon receiving such confirmation, the Xxxx/Administrator shall forward to each referee a copy of the Member's curriculum vitae, the publication...
