Research Project Support

Research Project Support Assessment System

Beykoz University Research Project Support Assessment System is based on the following principles:

All projects are evaluated with the same evaluation criteria. TUBITAK definitions are used as evaluation criteria, definition of criteria and evaluation grade. The meanings of the criteria are interpreted according to the area of the project evaluated.

For the evaluation of the projects, an evaluation report is obtained from two referees who are experts in the field of the project. One of the referees is selected from the department of the project coordinator, the other from the faculty of the project coordinator or from another faculty within the university. Referees are selected from experts in the project field or close field. In the referee report, there is an evaluation grade on the basis of criteria about the project and the grade given is justified.

The weights of the evaluation criteria are the same and equal for all branches. There is one and the same threshold value for all criteria. Projects that fall below the threshold value from any criteria are not supported. The threshold value is 3 according to the points system below. The Research Support Committee acts as the evaluation panel and lists the applications according to the evaluation reports from the referees and determines the projects to be supported and the amount of support within the framework of the budget and possibilities. If the Research Support Commission deems necessary, project coordinators may be asked to revise their project budgets to support more projects.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Criterion No 1: Original Value

To what extent does the project proposal reveal the deficiencies and / or problems in current science / technology; to what extent it provides original and creative / innovative suggestions for the solution of these deficiencies or solving problems and / or makes methodological / conceptual / theoretical contributions to the relevant science / technology fields? Criterion number 2: Method To what extent are the methods and research techniques to be applied in the project clearly and accurately explained by referring to the relevant literature and how appropriate are they to achieve the envisaged goals and objectives? To what extent are the alternative methods to be applied in the event that progress cannot be achieved with the methods proposed in the project?

Criterion No 3: Feasibility

To what extent is the project team sufficient and appropriate in terms of quality and quantity, considering the activities and disciplines covered by the project; to what extent is the work and task distribution planned correctly, taking into account the competencies and work packages of the people?

How applicable and measurable / traceable are the work-time planning, work packages, importance of each work package and success criteria envisaged in the project?

How realistic and feasible is the cooperation and coordination of the project team (in projects involving multiple disciplines) planned considering the work packages?

To what extent does the unit where the project will be carried out have the necessary infrastructure and equipment

(laboratory, devices, electronic environment, etc.) for the execution of the project?

Criterion # 4: Pervasive Impact

If the project is carried out successfully, what is the potential for achieving outputs and results such as qualified academic publication, patent / registration, utility model, license, establishment of a new company, training of researchers, production of new projects, use in different science / technology fields etc.? What is the potential of the project outputs and results to solve social problems, to be commercialized, to reduce the country's dependency on abroad and / or to increase its competitiveness in the relevant field?

To what extent is the proposed plan for the delivery and dissemination of the project outputs and results to potential users sufficient and realistic?

What is the potential of the project subject to contribute to the career development of the coordinator and to gain new skills? To what extent will the scientific cooperation developed with this project contribute to the project team, the relevant academic environment and our country?

To what level will it contribute to Turkey's role in the international arena to receive and / or to comply with EU and international norms and / or national culture / products to be introduced?  What is the potential of the project outputs and results to solve social problems, to commercialize, to reduce the country's dependence on abroad and / or to increase its competitiveness in the relevant field?

To what extent will the outputs and results of the project contribute to the research ecosystem, priorities, goals and objectives of Beykoz University?

Evaluation Score Meaning Explanation

5 - Very Good - The project proposal meets the relevant criteria in all its dimensions. There is almost no deficiency. There may be acceptable minor defects.

4- Good - The project proposal meets the relevant criteria well. However, the proposal still has some points with potential for improvement. 3 - Medium - The project proposal moderately meets the relevant criteria. Improvements are needed in the proposal. 2 - Not good- The project proposal does not meet the relevant criteria sufficiently. There are important shortcomings in the proposal.

1 - Insufficient - The project proposal does not meet the relevant criteria. There are serious deficiencies / weaknesses in the project proposal.

Note: In the definition of Beykoz University

Research Project Support Assessment System and Criteria, the project evaluation system and criteria of TÜBİTAK were taken as basis.

This content was updated on 16/12/2020.