The evaluation should take into account the specificities of the discipline and the number of years of professional experience (PhD and postdoctoral work).
Curriculum and professional experiences
The Evaluation Committee Members must indicate:
- If the curriculum is linear or multidisciplinary (experience in labs with different research topics or complementary technological approaches),
- If the candidate returns to his thesis laboratory, assess the relevance of this continuity,
- If the work in different laboratories is appreciated (publication as first, co-first author or other work).
Production
The committee evaluates the importance of the conceptual, methodological, or technological contribution of the candidate’s work and its impact for Inserm. Opinions should consider the candidate’s personal contribution (publications, economic, clinical and societal transfer).
Publications:
Inserm is a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration (DORA). The Impact Factor (IF) should not be used as a substitute for evaluating scientific quality. The committee should focus on the scientific content of articles rather than the journal’s reputation.
The committee should provide reasoned opinions on the quality, the candidate’s level of involvement, and the visibility of:
- original articles in peer-reviewed journals,
- Other peer-reviewed publications: reviews, books, international conference proceedings, FC3R Short Notes, and preprints (PCI, Review Commons, ...).
Submitted or under-review articles (not yet published) are not accepted.
Valorisation:
The Evaluation Committee Members must give their opinion on the candidate’s development capabilities in terms of:
- Economic development:
- Invention (patents, licenses, industrial contracts),
- Business creation,
- Development of tools (biobanks, software, databases, ontologies, …).
- Clinical transfer:
- Proof of concept study, PHRC, clinical study…;
- Involvement (promoter, coordinator, partner…) in transversal structures (cohorts, surveys, referral centers, CIC, CRB…)
- Societal valuation:
- Production of tools, recommendations and open-access or open-source resources validated by peer review; transfer of results to practices or public policies and implementation of health interventions and innovations (prevention, care); other outputs arising from participatory research (co-design, co-production, ...).
https://pro.inserm.fr/rubriques/en-labo/recherche-participative/vers-de-bonnes-pratiques-de-recherche-participative.
- Production of tools, recommendations and open-access or open-source resources validated by peer review; transfer of results to practices or public policies and implementation of health interventions and innovations (prevention, care); other outputs arising from participatory research (co-design, co-production, ...).
Project
The Committee should analyze and evaluate:
- The originality and relevance of the research question, risk-taking, clarity of objectives, positioning in the national, European, and international context, and methodological appropriateness,
- Whether the project continues previous work or proposes a conceptual and/or technological breakthrough,
- Feasibility of the project in the host Inserm lab: adequacy of human, financial, methodological, and technological resources (platform access, tool availability, …),
- Expected impact on the advancement of knowledge,
- The role of the candidate in the project,
- Potential for economic, clinical and societal transfer;
- Consideration of ethical rules and regulatory aspects: rigor and integrity (statistical methodology, conflict of interest, reproducibility...).
Animation
The committee should assess the candidate’s ability to lead and share knowledge, considering:
- Presentations of research at national, European, and international conferences and seminars (oral presentations, posters, invited talks),
- Scientific communications as non-peer-reviewed open-access preprints (bioRxiv, …),
- Funding obtained, if applicable,
- National, European, or international collaborations,
- Supervision of students, junior scientists, technical staff, …,
- Teaching activities,
- Scientific evaluation activities (manuscripts, grant proposals, committee or jury membership, ...),
- Participation in the collective life of the lab (seminars, management, health and safety, good practices, quality, platforms, ...),
- Involvement in the ecological transition of the team/unit
- Participation in organizing events with and for patient associations or other groups,
- Activities and ways to share knowledge and skills with patients and the general public (information sessions, brochures or books, training activities, ...), as well as activities to encourage their involvement in research (taking part in studies, advisory committees, citizen workshops, …),
- Science communication outputs (articles, interviews, publications, videos, science mediation tools, science–society debates, …
Oral presentation
The committee should evaluate the quality of the oral presentation, considering:
- Structured, rigorous and didactic character,
- Ability to convince, dynamism and ability to be concise.
Discussion
The committee should evaluate the relevance of responses during the discussion, paying particular attention to:
- Analytical skills, creativity, critical thinking, ability to listen and debate, and conciseness of responses,
- Autonomy, team spirit, ability to lead a team, openness to share knowledge and collaborate,
- Scientific culture;
- Behavioral intelligence.
The committee should also comment on the candidate’s ability to integrate into the host Inserm laboratory and their understanding of the academic research system in France.