ORCID Global Participation Fund – Overview of Evaluation Rubric
An evaluation rubric is an important tool to ensure consistency and transparency related to the selection of proposals awarded funding. The best rubrics are instrumental for articulating what excellence is, what traits in a proposal are the most important, and to help to remove the potential for bias by making criteria more objective. We have created a detailed rubric which we will use to evaluate grant proposals. This document gives an overview of the seven criteria which our evaluations will be based on.
How will the Grant Proposal be Evaluated?
As with any grant program, we seek to identify and award proposals that are likely to have the most effective impact on the Fund’s objectives in the most efficient way. As a result, preference will be given to proposals with demonstrated ability to:
- Provide effective impact most efficiently.
- Deliver impact to multiple Fund objectives.
- Target communities that are less well represented in the ORCID membership/user base, i.e. those in the Focus Communities (see below)
The Fund’s Evaluation Group consists of ORCID staff and members of the ORCID community and will evaluate all proposals submitted by the submission deadline as outlined in the call for proposals. Each proposal will be read and evaluated by at least two people according to the set rubric based on the criteria outlined below. We expect to provide feedback on each proposal.
| Criterion | Criterion Sub category | 7– Exemplary | 5 – Adequate | 3 – Needs Improvement | 1 – Insufficient Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Project Objectives that Benefit Focus Communities | Community Benefit | The proposal clearly identifies one or more communities within the defined Focus Communities, at least one of which is a priority for ORCID. | The proposal clearly identifies one or more communities within the defined Focus Communities. | The proposal mentions one or more communities, but they are unclear, not specific or do not meet the definition of Focus Communities. | The proposal does not clearly identify the community or communities it intends to benefit. |
| 1-Year Objectives | The proposal clearly states specific and compelling objectives for the one-year funding period for the Focus Community. | The proposal states clear and achievable, one-year objectives for the Focus Community. | The proposal includes objectives, but are unclear, too general, or not realistic. | The proposal does not describe objectives for the one-year funding period. | |
| Expected Impact | The proposal clearly describes the expected impact, which is strong, compelling, or innovative. | The expected impact is clearly described, but is similar to existing funded projects, which may limit its added value. | The expected impact is mentioned, but lacks detail (scale, outcomes, or measurable change). | The expected impact is not described. | |
| Broader Context | The project is part of a clearly described and well-supported larger effort with broad impact. | The proposal describes the broader context, but detail or supporting evidence is limited . | The proposal describes long-term goals but does not connect them to a larger effort. | The proposal does not describe long-term goals or context. | |
| B. Suitability of Project Approach to Local Constraints & Needs | Community Rationale | The proposal clearly and convincingly explains why the selected community should benefit from the program. | The proposal explains why the selected community was chosen. | The explanation for selecting the community is unclear or too general. | The proposal does not explain why the community was selected. |
| Challenge Understanding | The proposal clearly and convincingly describes the challenges faced by the community and why they should be addressed. | The proposal identifies community challenges but lacks clarity or detail. | The description of challenges is incomplete or too general. | The proposal does not describe community challenges. | |
| Approach to Change | The proposal shows a clear and compelling understanding of how to create meaningful change. | The proposal shows a good understanding of how to create change. | The proposal shows only a basic understanding of how to create change. | The proposal does not demonstrate understanding of how to create change. | |
| C. Clarity of Project Approach | Clarity | The proposal clearly and fully describes project activities. . Activities are well aligned with objectives,and the plan is well developed. | The proposal describes activities, including timelines, resources, and expected outputs. The plan is logical. | The proposal lacks detail about activities, timelines or resources, or the plan is unclear or not logical. | The proposal does not describe the activities to be supported. |
| D. Feasibility of Project Approach | Feasibility | The proposed activities are feasible. The individuals and organizations involved are well qualified, committed, and supported by their institutions. | The proposed activities are feasible. There is sufficient evidence that the individuals and organizations have the necessary qualifications, experience, time and resources. | The proposed activities may not be feasible. There is limited evidence of sufficient qualifications, experience, time or resources. | The proposal does not describe the qualifications, experience, or resources of the individuals and organizations. |
| E. Match to GPF Objectives | GPF Match | The proposal clearly and strongly connects the project to GPF objectives.. | The proposal shows understanding of GPF objectives in its project description. | The connection to GPF objectives is unclear. | The proposal does not explain how it relates to GPF objectives. |
| F. Use of Resources | Resource Use | The expected outcomes are strong and highly impactful to the resources requested. | The expected outcomes are appropriate for the level of resources requested. | The expected outcomes are limited in impact compared to the resources requested. | The requested resources are not justified by the outcomes or include inappropriate uses. |
| G. Post-grant Sustainability/ Impact | Sustainability | The proposal clearly describes sustainability plans, including specific activities and how they will be supported. | The proposal includes a sustainability plan, but lacks detail on activities or resources. | The proposal recognizes the need for sustainability, but does not clearly describe how it will be achieved. | The proposal does not address sustainability. |