Assessment of Proposal
The ICMS Programme Committee (current membership below) is charged with overseeing the peer-review process. Although it is designed to be balanced and broadly based, it is not possible for any committee such this one (or similarly the editorial board of a major journal) to cover the entire range of the mathematical sciences with equal authority. The Programme Committee will take the necessary steps to assess proposals properly by seeking outside expert advice on the correct choice of referees when necessary. Therefore proposers are encouraged to apply, even when their topic is in an area not obviously covered by the membership of the Programme Committee. The Scientific Director can call upon any member of the EPSRC Peer Review College, and beyond, for advice and judgement.
Programme Committee Membership
| Name | Institution | |
|---|---|---|
| Professor John Ball FRS | ||
| Professor Jerry Bona | Chairman | |
| Professor Mark Chaplain | EMS representative | |
| Professor John Elgin | EPSRC representative | |
| Professor Martin Hyland | ||
| Professor Nick Manton FRS | LMS representative | |
| Professor Elmer Rees | ||
| Professor A B Movchan | ||
| Professor Ben Leimkuhler | ||
| Professor Ulrike Tillmann | ||
| Professor John Toland FRS | ||
| Professor Marie-France Vigneras | ||
| Dr Stan Zachary | ||
| Professor Angus Macintyre | ||
| Dr Katharine Bowes | Observer, ex officio | |
| Professor Ken A Brown | ||
| Professor Colin Aitken | EMS representative | |
| Professor Andrew Stuart | LMS representative | |
| Dr Lothar Gottsche | ICTP |
(Prof J M Ball and Prof M-F Vigneras are also members of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences. Common membership of committees is a mechanism by which INI and ICMS keep in touch.)
Meetings
The Committee meets in person only once a year. In order to react quickly to proposals, decisions are made outside meetings at two other times each year (see Procedures and Mechanisms below). In addition to assessing new proposals, at their annual meeting the Committee is tasked to
- review and evaluate proposals made over the past 12 months
- evaluate workshops held in previous 12 months
- discuss topics where workshops should be encouraged.
Conflict of Interest
Committee members are asked to disqualify themselves from participation in the decision-making process if there is a possible conflict of interest, for example if a proposal comes from a personal friend, departmental colleague, a current or very recent collaborator, or a student (<3 years ago).
PROCEDURES AND MECHANISMS
Submission
A proposal is submitted to the ICMS office, where the Centre Manager (CM) acknowledges it and passes it on to the Scientific Director (SD).
Appointment of referees
The SD consults all members of the Programme Committee by e-mail. A minimum of three referees will then be asked to comment on the proposal. (See Choice of Referees below.) The CM requests referees' reports, collates responses and passes them to the SD.
Feedback to proposer
The SD sends the referees' comments to the proposer and invites a response. The SD may ask for a proposal to be revised in the light of the referees' comments.
Decision-making
- Decisions will be made by the Programme Committee three times a year in December, March, and July (the July meeting will be the main annual meeting).
- The Programme Committee will be presented with the proposal (and revision where this has been requested), the referees' comments and proposers' responses. One of the Committee will be asked to act as 'Reader' for a specific proposal. Each member will be asked to score all proposals on the basis of the referees' comments, the selection criteria and ICMS Scientific Policy. The scores are:
1 - Excellent. Meets all criteria and is likely to have a high impact
2 - Very good. Meets all criteria
3 - Satisfactory. Meets most criteria but is unlikely to be funded without revision
4 - Does not meet criteria.
General comments are also invited.
Decisions will be reached by email in March and December. The CM will collate the Programme Committee members’ scores and comments and pass them to the SD, Chairman and Readers who will use this information to make a preliminary recommendation. This recommendation will be circulated to the Committee, inviting immediate email discussion.
- Once a consensus is reached, the SD will recommend to the ICMS Management Committee those proposals that should be funded, bearing in mind the resources available and the need to produce a balanced programme.
- Should the number of highly-rated proposals exceed the Management Committee's capacity to allocate funds for a given year, some proposals may have to be turned away or offered a later date.
Choice of Referees
A minimum of three referees is asked to comment on the proposal. In the case of novel or interdisciplinary proposals, a greater number is likely to be invited to comment. Referees are appointed on the basis of their area of expertise; both national and international referees will be used as a matter of course.
- One referee will be chosen from the list supplied by the proposer.
- The remaining referees will be chosen by the Scientific Director on the basis of suggestions from members of the Programme Committee (or members of the EPSRC Peer Review College if the subject is too far from the areas of expertise of Committee members).
A full record of all emails, letters etc will be kept at ICMS for 5 years.