SERCE Review 1 - Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research

Evaluation of SCAR
<strong>Scientific</strong> Research Programmes
<strong>SERCE</strong>
FINAL EVALUATION
SUMMARY
EVALUATION CRITERION
RATING
1) <strong>Scientific</strong> Merit and Quality 9
2) Soundness of the Approach and 9
Likelihood of Success and Impact
3) Contribution to SCAR’s Strategic 9
Plan
4) International Involvement and 9
Partnerships
5) Data Management Plan 9
6) Capacity Building, Education and 9
Training Plan
FINAL EVALUATION
CLASSIFICATION (A, B, or C)
A: The SRP should be approved
B: The SRP should be conditionally approved
C: The SRP should not be approved
A
SCAR has limited financial support for SRPs. The Delegates would benefit from the
evaluators opinion whether the proposed program; from the perspective of scientific
objectives, scope, community served, participation, and impact; rises to the level of a SCAR
SRP or could the same results be realized through alternative mechanisms (e.g., Action
Group, Expert Group, etc.)?
<strong>SERCE</strong> SRP will be a very promising proposal under a limited financial support. Previous IPY
achievement is leading to develop the <strong>SERCE</strong> and a good science community has been formed to
launch the <strong>SERCE</strong>.
Overall score is “A”

Evaluation of SCAR
<strong>Scientific</strong> Research Programmes
<strong>SERCE</strong>
Evaluation Criteria
<strong>Scientific</strong> Merit and Quality
(300 words max)
Guiding questions: Does the SRP address fundamental scientific objectives that will produce
transformative results? How does this SRP topic compare with other important research in
the polar regions? Is innovative and high quality science proposed that builds on previous
knowledge in the field? Will frontiers in science be advanced at the conclusion of the SRP?
Will the SRP enhance and/or improve the profile and relevance of SCAR science?
<strong>SERCE</strong> is developed based on the achievements and new findings from the IPY 2007-2008 and is a
challenging proposal to develop a models of glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) and ice sheet
dynamics. <strong>SERCE</strong> will be high quality science proposal and is quite relevant to the SCAR.
Rating Scale 0 to 10 evaluating how well the proposals addresses the criterion with 0 - poor,
5 - good, and 10 - excellent
<strong>Scientific</strong> Merit and Quality Rating: 9
Soundness of the Approach and Likelihood of Success and Impact
(300 words max)
Guiding questions: - How likely is success in addressing the scientific objectives? Do you
see significant barriers to success not recognized by the proponents? Are plans to
communicate SRP outcomes to a wider audience sufficient? Will scientific outcomes support
scientific advice to policy and decision makers? Is SCAR’s support for the SRP critical to the
success of the research? Is the SRP feasible from an operational and technical viewpoint?
Do the data/observations exist to support the program objectives? Is there significant activity
in this area by National Antarctic Programs that will ensure the success of the program?
Approach described in the proposal as well as a road map in 6 years ahead are well prepared. They
have organized two workshops in 2010 and 2011 around the SCAR activities and many outstanding
scientists participated in the workshops. Therefore, this SRP will be very promising proposal to
achieve a new milestone in polar science.
Rating Scale 0 to 10 evaluating how well the proposals addresses the criterion with 0 - poor,
5 - good, and 10 - excellent
Soundness of the Approach and Likelihood of Success and Impact Rating: 9

Evaluation of SCAR
<strong>Scientific</strong> Research Programmes
<strong>SERCE</strong>
Contribution to SCAR’s Strategic Plan
(300 words max)
Guiding questions: Does the SRP materially contribute to SCAR’s Strategic Plan? Does the
SRP strengthen SCAR’s scientific portfolio? How significant and practical are the proposed
interdisciplinary elements? Does the SRP fill a gap in SCAR’s scientific activities?
http://www.scar.org/strategicplan2011)? Is there adequate leverage of SCAR funds with
other sources of funding?
Idea and concept of <strong>SERCE</strong> fits quite well to the SCAR strategic plan and the <strong>SERCE</strong> contribution to
the IPCC AR6 will be very likely and be great ones.
Rating Scale 0 to 10 evaluating how well the proposals addresses the criterion with 0 - poor,
5 - good, and 10 - excellent
Contribution to SCAR’s Strategic Plan Rating: 9
International Involvement and Partnerships
(300 words max)
Guiding questions: Does the SRP involve, or have the potential to involve, multiple SCAR
nations and/or nations beyond SCAR? Are there significant links to relevant international
programmes external to SCAR? Is a substantial community involved in and likely to benefit
from the program’s outcomes?
During the IPY 2007/2008, a quite good collaboration among many outstanding scientists covering
key areas of science from many nations have been constructed and this community has been working
nicely to draft the <strong>SERCE</strong> proposal. Therefore, there are no doubt of international involvement and
partnership.
Role of chief officer and lead investigators are well organized and prepared. They surely steer nicely
the progress of <strong>SERCE</strong>.
Rating Scale 0 to 10 evaluating how well the proposals addresses the criterion with 0 - poor,
5 - good, and 10 - excellent
International Involvement and Partnerships Rating: 9

Evaluation of SCAR
<strong>Scientific</strong> Research Programmes
<strong>SERCE</strong>
Data Management Plan
(300 words max)
Guiding questions: Does the plan adequately address issues of data archiving and access?
Are data management plans sufficient to ensure preservation of data and wide availability?
Does the plan support the SCAR Data and Information Management Strategy? Is there a
direct link to SCADM? Are SCAR products utilized when relevant?
Data management plan is well described in the proposal and their arrangement of data management
will strongly support the SCAR strategy.
Rating Scale 0 to 10 evaluating how well the proposals addresses the criterion with 0 - poor,
5 - good, and 10 - excellent
Data Management Plan Rating: 9
Capacity Building, Education and Training Plan
(300 words max)
Guiding questions: Does the proposal adequately address issues of capacity building,
education and training? Are nations with less well developed Antarctic Programmes likely to
participate and contribute? Are Early Career scientists likely to participate?
MF comments below:
<strong>SERCE</strong> planning group has developed a multifaceted plan for capacity building, education and
training and public outreach. Their road map of analytical capacity and training seem to be a good
progress.
Rating Scale 0 to 10 evaluating how well the proposals addresses the criterion with 0 - poor,
5 - good, and 10 - excellent
Capacity Building, Education and Training Plan Rating: 9