Evaluation Process
Selection principles
The selection process will be designed to meet international standards in terms of fairness, transparency, impartiality, consistency, and independence to identify the most relevant beneficiaries (irrespective of their gender, age, social or physical status, beliefs, nationality, political or sexual orientation).
The procedure will be fully online and based on a two-step evaluation process encompassing a single blind remote evaluation phase followed by a panel meeting.
Evaluation process
The evaluation will be performed by a panel whose composition will be based on the following principles:
- Identification of a sufficient number and appropriate mix of experts to ensure that all submitted applications are covered by relevant experience and expertise, while also ensuring a balanced distribution of the workload
- The panel will be composed of international experts only, considering gender balance and geographical coverage
- Experts will be checked to ensure they have no conflict of interests and will have to abide to confidentiality and data protection regulations.
Panel members will be acting as:
- Rapporteurs: responsible for scoring and commenting applications prior to the panel meeting and introducing the application during the panel meeting.
- Reviewers: responsible for scoring the applications prior to the panel meeting and commenting the application during the panel meeting.
1. Remote evaluation phase
Prior to the panel meeting, each application will be remotely scored by all PMs and further reviewed with written comments by two rapporteurs.
The remote evaluation is conducted in a simple blind format, meaning that experts are aware of the applicants' identities but not of the other PMs.
2. Panel meeting
The panel gathers online.
During the panel meeting, each application will be presented by its rapporteurs and collectively discussed during a tour de table, with a dual aim of identifying the beneficiaries and drafting the Evaluation Summary Reports.
The panel will make its decision preferably via consensus or, if consensus cannot be achieved, via a simple majority vote of the members present, with each expert having one vote.
A KickCancer observer without voting rights may attend the panel meeting.
3. Feedback to applicants
All applicants will receive feedback on their application via an Evaluation Summary Report (ESR). These reports will contain comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the research project, as well as an overall remark without any references to the scores or rankings.
The purpose of the ESRs is to provide scientific feedback that can help applicants improve the quality of their research project with a view to reapply in a future call or seeking alternative funding.
The purpose of the ESRs is to provide scientific feedback that can help applicants improve the quality of their research project with a view to reapply in a future call or seeking alternative funding.
No redress procedure is foreseen.
Evaluation Criteria
To reflect on the specificities of the instrument and its applicants, the following evaluation criteria and weighting will be in force:
- Quality of the applicant - 30%:
- track record (clinical papers, research articles, invited talks, poster presentations, …);
- visibility in the field;
- clinical practice experience;
- academic and training excellence (academic honours, previous funding, fellowships and grants, international mobility/internships, …).
- Quality and relevance of the research environment – 30%.
- Quality and originality of the research project – 20%.
- Potential impact and clinical relevance (including synergy between the clinical activity and the proposed research project) – 20%.
Scoring Scale
Each criterion will be scored using the following scale:
- score 5 - Excellent: The application successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion, with only minor shortcomings.
- score 4 - Very Good: The application addresses the criterion very well, though a few minor shortcomings are present.
- score 3 - Good: The application addresses the criterion well, but several shortcomings are present.
- score 2 – Fair: The application broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses.
- score 1 - Poor: The application does not adequately address the criterion, or it contains serious inherent weaknesses.
- score 0 - Irrelevant: The application fails to address the criterion.
Final decision
The KCIG will be granted by KickCancer on basis of the international panel recommendations.
Independence
PMs act in their own name and not as representatives of an organisation, country or any entity to which they are affiliated. In the evaluation, they shall not be influenced by any considerations other than the interest of science and the scientific merits of the application. PMs must not use the services of third parties during the deliberations, nor in their preparation.
Research Integrity
Research integrity is of utmost importance. All experts involved in the evaluation process will be notified and asked to pay specific attention to scientific misconduct such as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or misrepresentation of data.
Funded researchers are expected to strictly comply to all institutional rules and regulations that apply in terms of research integrity. In case of integrity breach suspicion or allegation, KickCancer will take the appropriate measures.
Artificial Intelligence
The use of natural language processors, large language models, or other generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in the PMs evaluation work is prohibited. No data (whether personal or not) may be processed using these tools.
Ethics
Research projects may require prior consideration of ethical problems that might arise or that are inherent to the submitted research project. The possible ethical problems may relate to the use and storage of private data, the handling of substances that may cause environmental or biodiversity damage and the research on animals or human beings (non-exhaustive list).
It is the responsibility of the grant laureate to submit an ethical clearance provided by their local ethics committee to KickCancer (if the project raises any ethical issues). This process ensures that all research and innovation activities under the KCIG comply with ethics principles and relevant national and international legislation.
Failing to provide this required ethical clearance may result in the cancellation of the KCIG.
Open science
The scientific outputs stemming from research supported by the KCIG should be valorised to maximise societal benefits.
To this end the KickCancer Foundation supports the publication in Open Access, with a preference for the deposit requirement of publications resulting from the funded project (Green Open access).
The facilitation of the free access to these research outputs not only aims at the benefit of the scientific community but is also meant to increase both national and international visibility of the researchers.
Valorisation
The potential impact of the scientific output of research supported by the KICIG should be maximized through the implementation of a strong utilization and valorisation strategy.
Schedule of the Call
- Opening of the call: 1st December 2025
- Deadline: 2nd March 2026
- Panel meeting: 28th May 2026
- Award ceremony: TBC
- Start of the Grant: 2nd October 2026
Documents Of The Call
The call is open