Announcing Joint Call EASI-Genomics and EPIC-XS

Submission is open from 01 March to April 10, 2022.

In this call, EASI-Genomics will also consider projects using genomics and proteomic approaches. Applicants should submit the full proposal, including the work requested from EASI-Genomics and that from EPIC-XS. The genomics part will be assessed by the EASI-Genomics review, and shortlisted proposals will be shared with EPIC-XS for their evaluation. For submission for this joint call please visit the EASI-Genomics website

Final call EPIC-XS 2022

Submission is open. The deadline is 30 June 2022.

In this final call, EPIC-XS projects will be stringently evaluated as the demand for access has meant that many access sites have reached their full capacity. Regretfully, the FGCZ and TUM sites cannot consider any more new projects. The CEITEC site remains open with limited capacity. Structural proteomics projects will be considered at the IMIC site.

IEO will consider histone post-translational projects only. If the IEO site is your preference, you must indicate the IEO access site on your submission form. Upon submission of the final application please select – unsure which of the 4 access sites to select. The project is sent to the coordinator who will promptly send your project to the IEO access site.

Thank you in advance for your understanding and support of EPIC-XS. The deadline for submission is 30 June 2022.

Please contact the coordinator’s office if you have any queries or encounter any problems: info@epic-xs.eu

Eligible Country

Make sure your institute or research facility is based in one of the eligible countries. The user may not reside in the country where he/she has requested access to specific proteomic technology. Exceptions will be made with respect to generic scientific applications, where national access is allowed.

Projects will be related to proteomic research within the life science arena. All applications will be selected on their scientific merit, technical feasibility, International impact of the research and the standard of scientific expertise from the applicant.

Access Site

While applicants can choose a preferred access site, (UCPH, UU, VIB-UGent, IP, FGCZ, CNIO, CRG, KTH, IMIC, CEITEC, TUM, IEO) the selection criteria will be based on the type of (unique) services provided by a facility and their proven expertise with such services. Reviewers may also give feedback as to which platforms are more suitable. If  an applicant is unsure of which infrastructure best suits the project, a host infrastructure will be selected for the applicant based on project requirements.

In cases where the user has listed a preferred access site, it is the editor’s discretion to redirect a project to an alternative access site. This can occur in cases where the editor feels that the technology required for the project is better suited to the proteomics technology at another access site, for logistic purposes or at the request of the reviewer. This decision will always be discussed with the user and a check list will be discussed.

The principal investigator will be informed of the outcome of their proposal. In such cases where the proposal is rejected, an improved version of the proposal can be re-submitted in the next call. Evaluation reports will be provided for all projects.

Access Sites

.

Check List for Proposal Submission

Proposal Details

Research project title: provide a title for your project.

Scientific background and significance: a concise introduction to the research topic (400 words maximum), with the background and rationale to the project as well as the expected impact of the research.

Description of experiments proposed: proposals should contain sufficient preliminary data to show that the experimental work is feasible (300 words maximum). Clearly indicate the proteomics technology  intended  for the project, the type and number of samples  to be analyzed and include control experiments. There should be no safety or ethical issues preventing access.

Details of samples to be analyzed: Please indicate at least the name and taxonomy ID of organism from which the sample(s) originate(s) providing a short description of the steps involved in sample preparation. The final buffer/solution in which the sample will be provided for analysis and the (estimated) protein amount/concentration.

Expected Outcome: The applicant should  include the projects contribution towards life science research, and how the proposed experiments will benefit the research question to be answered (300 words maximun).

Exclude Reviewers

This is your opportunity to  exclude reviewers (see list at bottom of this webpage) that may have conflict of interest. Please note that the reviewers to be excluded will always be excluded, while the persons that are suggested by the applicant to review the proposal may be replaced by ones that may be more appropriate.

• Is the proposal sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant further investigation?
• Is there a clear and accurate assessment of the scientific question under investigation?

• Is there a convincing case for this research challenge and questions?
• Are the research challenges logical, researchable, achievable, and ethical?

• Is there a strong conclusion that demonstrates the micro and macro implications of this research proposal and how it will help to fill a knowledge gap?
• Is the proposal written with enough breadth and clarity so reviewers who are not familiar with it can understand its significance?

Confirm and Submit Proposal

Please review you proposal carefully before submitting. Once you submit you can access your dashboard to check and follow the status. If you have any questions contact us by e-mail: m.c.oflaherty@uu.nl

What happens after submission?

Once the deadline for submission has passed, the submitted proposals will be assigned to the particular access site requested in the proposal. The moderator at that access site will assign three reviewers. Applicants might find it useful to read the EPIC-XS  proposal moderator and reviewer guidelines below. Once a proposal is accepted, the applicant will be put in contact with the principal investigator at the access site where the experimental studies will be performed. Please note that a pilot project will first be performed to ensure that the study is viable.

Letter of Acceptance

Following the review process where an applicants proposal has been accepted for access, an official letter of acceptance can be requested from the coordinators office. Mail: info@epic-xs.eu

Guidelines for editors at access sites

Guidelines for Reviewers

Editors should assess proposals according to the following initial criteria:

• Eligibility: Proposals must originate from an EU-country or associated country: (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lituania, Luxemburg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,United Kingdom, Albania, Armenia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Faroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland, Isreal, Liechtenstein, Macedonia Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Tunisia,Turkey,Ukraine
• National access is permitted only in situations where a particular generic technologies e.g. 2D gel electrophoresis, in gel digestion etc  are available at multiple locations and the user cannot claim travel expenses when availing of national access and is limited to 10% of access capacity of the site.
• Non -European access is permitted to a limit of 20% of the total amount of access provided See AGA 16(b)
• Field of research and request for platform access: The research should fall within the requested modality and be well matched to the desired host institute.

Editors must ensure that reports from at least three reviewers are received for each proposal. Reviewers should be appointed as quickly as possible once the deadline for proposal submission has been reached and proposals will be sent in batches (5 proposals at a time). The aim is to ensure that the review process runs efficently and that reviewers can provide a decision to the proposer within two weeks following the deadline for submission, unless there are circumstances involved which require further deliberation/ other information may be required for the evaluation process.

When sufficient reviews have been received, the editor decides on one of five outcomes:

• Accept
• Reject
• Change Reviewer
• Contact applicant (additional information required)

The Editor may refer back to the reviewers at any time for help and comment on the proposal outcome to the applicant. The applicant will receive the reviewers decision as well as the decision of the editor.

EPIC-XS will provide around 2400 days of access to state-of-the-art proteomics facilities, which will be evaluated by an independent review panel to ensure excellence, and match users with the best facility for their challenging research questions.

Before Reviewing please consider the following:

• Does the project proposal you are being asked to review match your expertise?
  If you receive a proposal that does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the coordinator (contact details are given below) as soon as possible. Please feel free to recommend an alternate reviewer, from the list of reviewers provided.

• Do you have time to review the proposal?
  Reviews of a project proposal (4 pages maximum, plus references) should be completed within two weeks. If you are not able to complete the review within this time frame, please let the coordinator know and if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer. If you have agreed to review a proposal but will no longer be able to finish the work before the deadline, please contact the coordinator as soon as possible.

• Are there any potential conflicts of interests?
  While conflicts of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the project proposal, it is important to disclose all conflicts of interest to the coordinator before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interests, please do not hesitate to contact the coordinator. 

The Review

When reviewing the proposal, please keep the following in mind:

• Is the rationale for a proteomics experiment well defined in the proposal?
• Does the project have a clear goal?
• Scientific and Technological relevance and originality of the project should be considered.

EPIC-XS REVIEW PANEL :

EPIC-XS REVIEW PANEL

1 file(s) 498.18 KB

Download

PUBLICATIONS

It is the responsibility of all users who have been approved access to EPIC-XS that all scientifically peer-reviewed publications that stem and acknowledge EPIC-XS project activities must be provided as open access. Guidelines to to Scientific Publications and Open Access to Research Data in Horizon 2020 are available here:  Guidelines on open access