Sub-Commission Project Evaluation Process

Project proposals submitted to the BAP Coordination Unit are first subjected to a preliminary review to determine whether they meet the required conditions. Proposals that pass the preliminary assessment are submitted by the Coordinator to the Commission. The Commission reviews the proposals and either forwards them to the relevant Sub-Commission for evaluation or rejects them directly.

The Commission makes its final decision—support, revision, or rejection—by taking into account the reports submitted by the Sub-Commission, the principles outlined in Article 10, and the scientific publications produced from previous projects of the research team.

Project proposals that are not revised within one (1) month without a valid legal justification such as official leave, assignment, or health issues are cancelled by decision of the BAP Commission. If deemed necessary, the Commission may request changes in the project team from the principal investigator.

The Sub-Commission submits a reasoned report to the Commission regarding whether the project should be supported based on the scoring results. Sub-Commission members cannot participate in the evaluation and decision-making process of projects in which they are listed as part of the project team. If the number of participating Sub-Commission members falls below two (2), expert opinion is required for evaluation. The final score is calculated by dividing the total score by the number of voting members. Projects scoring below 60 points overall and below 15 points in originality are not supported.

During the evaluation stage, the Sub-Commission may request the principal investigator to present the project orally.

For projects approved for funding, implementation is subject to approval of the Commission decision by the Rector or the relevant Vice-Rector. For approved projects, a “Scientific Research Projects Support Agreement” is prepared and signed by the principal investigator and the Chair of the Commission, detailing the project conditions. The principal investigator is obliged to comply with the terms of this agreement.

Projects that cannot be funded due to insufficient budget may be resubmitted by the investigators in subsequent years for reconsideration.

For ongoing projects, the Commission may appoint reviewers upon the recommendation of the relevant Sub-Commission to monitor progress and final reports, as well as to evaluate change requests.

When evaluating projects, the Commission also considers the investigator’s previous projects and related publications. Principal investigators who have published their results in journals indexed in international citation databases (SCI, SCI-Expanded, SSCI, AHCI) within the last three years and whose projects have been cited are given priority in funding decisions and are granted the right to submit one additional project proposal.

Click here for details.