The selection process is driven by the secretary of the Scientific Advisory Board.
Each abstract will be rated by each member of the SAB independently following a defined methodology
Each abstract will be evaluated taking into account the following criteria:
- Clarity of objectives
- Relevance to ALS and to the Foundation’s objectives
- Expertise, track record, and standing of the applicant
- Originality, position with respect to ongoing research
- Estimated budget compared to the expected results
Abstract will be scored as follows
A shall mean a definitive yes and will be invited to submit a full application
B shall mean maybe and will depend on the level of budget available for the call
C shall mean a definitive no and will not be invited to submit a full application, it being specified that a C can only be given to a project not reaching the criteria on clarity of objectives or relevance to ALS and to the Foundation’s objectives or feasibility
The Scientific Advisory Board will meet to make a final selection that will be submitted to Founder and the college B for approval
The General Manager will then invite all successful applicants to submit a full application. Unsuccessful applicants will be informed by the General Manager that they will not be invited to submit a full application.
No further feedback will be provided to uninvited applicants.
Full application evaluation
On receipt of the applications, the secretary of the SAB will send the full application to a minimum of two external referees that are not involved in the Foundation and have no link with the applicant.
Referees will be selected by the secretary of the SAB among the international research community after validation by the president of the SAB, taking into account any potential conflict of interest situation.
The referees will review the application and send in a full report, which includes their recommendation: “funding suggested” with three (3) possibilities:
“A” shall mean high priority for funding;
“B” shall mean to be considered for funding
“C” shall mean not to be considered for funding
The SAB and the secretary of the SAB guarantee the anonymity of the referees.
SAB will meet to grade the applications.
Each application will be presented by one SAB member together with the 2 referee’s evaluation.
SAB will then grade it ’A’ (high priority), ‘B’ (acceptable for funding), or ‘C’ (not suitable for funding).
If the external referees all advise not to fund the project, it will be ranked as Group C and no further discussed unless one member of the SAB wants a discussion.
If two referees consider a project as “high” priority, it should be ranked A or B by the SAB.
Group A and B projects will be further ranked in order of priority by each SAB Member, anonymously
The proposal for a final selection will be submitted to the Executive Committee by the president of the Scientific Advisory Board
Feedback will be given to each applicant with the anonymous referees’ reports.
Unsuccessful applicants may decide (but will not be invited) to change their application according to the referees’ reports. They may submit an amended version of the application to the Foundation during the following call.