The Appraisal, Evaluation, and Acceptance Process

1. The criteria for appraising project registration dossiers submitted by individuals and organizations shall adhere to the following principles:

• Only dossiers meeting eligibility criteria shall be appraised and considered for selection;
• The appraisal shall evaluate the proposed timeline, feasibility of the anticipated outcomes, and alignment of the registration dossier with the University’s goals;
• National and international standards for scientific and technological research projects shall be applied during the appraisal process;
• The appraisal procedure shall be conducted by the Specialized Scientific Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Appraisal Committee”), which is proposed by the Department for Management of Science and Technology Development and approved by the Presidential Board, ensuring objectivity, integrity, and fairness.

2. Appraisal Committee

• The Appraisal Committee shall be established by the decision of the Presidential Board upon the recommendation of the Department for Management of Science and Technology Development;
• The Appraisal Committee shall be responsible for evaluating promising projects and providing recommendations for funding application, selection, and evaluation to the Presidential Board;
• Composition of the Appraisal Committee:
  • The Committee shall comprise 05 members, including a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman, 02 Review Members, and 01 Scientific Secretary;
  • Committee members shall be scientists, experts, and managers who demonstrate high ethical standards, possess relevant expertise and experience in the project’s field, are proficient in English for research and communication, and have no conflicts of interest with the funding applications.

3. Appraisal Committee’s working practices

• An Appraisal Committee session requires the attendance of at least four out of five members, including either the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman. The Chairman shall preside over meetings. In the Chairman’s absence, the Vice-Chairman shall preside;
• Working procedures of the Appraisal Committee:
  • The Scientific Secretary shall prepare and distribute the meeting dossiers to Committee members at least 07 days before the meeting;
  • Committee members shall discuss and provide their final evaluations using the Project Evaluation and Selection Form;
  • The presiding officer shall compile feedback and finalize the Committee’s conclusions in the Evaluation Summary Minutes;
  • Projects receiving the highest scores with a minimum of 50 out of 100 points shall be considered for funding. Exceptional cases shall be decided by the Presidential Board;
  • The Committee shall finalize the list of projects recommended for funding;
• Committee members shall not evaluate projects in which they serve as Principal Investigators or participating members;
• Committee members must attend meetings, conduct evaluations fairly and objectively, and maintain the confidentiality of project information until officially disclosed by an authorized entity. Each Committee member bears personal responsibility for their evaluations and collective responsibility for the Committee’s conclusions.

4. Announcement of Selected Projects

Based on the project selection results of the Appraisal Committee, the Department for Management of Science and Technology Development shall compile the appraisal results and submit them to the Presidential Board. The President shall issue a decision approving the list of selected projects and authorizing the allocation of funding.

5. Scientific and Technological Research Contract

• Based on the decision approving the project list and funding allocation, the President shall enter into a Scientific and Technological Research Contract with the Principal Investigator.
• The Scientific and Technological Research Contract (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Scientific Contract’) shall serve as the legal foundation for project implementation, oversight, evaluation, acceptance, and the resolution of any potential violations related to the project. The project registration dossier shall be an integral component of the Scientific Contract.
• If the Principal Investigator does not accept the terms and conditions outlined in the Scientific Contract, they must submit a written explanation to the University. The University shall review the request and reserve the right to withdraw the allocated funding for the project.

6. Funding Allocation

The University shall review and approve the total funding allocation and the funding disbursement schedule for projects based on the recommendations of the Appraisal Committee. These details shall be explicitly outlined in the Funding Decision and the Scientific Contract mentioned in Article 9 of this Regulation:

• The initial disbursement/advance payment, if applicable, shall be made promptly after the contract is signed and shall not exceed 50% of the total approved funding;
• The final disbursement shall be settled with the Principal Investigator upon fulfillment of the following conditions:
  • Successful final acceptance results of the project;
  • Submission of valid financial records and payment receipts by the Principal Investigator.

Upon signing the Scientific Contract, organizations and individuals shall be responsible for ensuring the prudent management of the allocated funds to implement the approved research activities in accordance with the contract timeline.

7. Research Outcomes and Organization of Acceptance and Evaluation Activities

• The Principal Investigator must be one of the authors of at least one published work, granted patent, or applied product (hereinafter referred to as the research work) derived from the project’s research content. The main author (either the first author or the submitting author) must be the Principal Investigator.
• If the project is co-funded by an external organization in addition to the University, the research outcomes must be equally credited to all funding entities on each published work. The total number of research works, distributed among funding entities, shall serve as the basis for project acceptance.
• The ownership rights of products resulting from the project shall be determined based on the Scientific and Technological Research Contract signed between the President and the Principal Investigator.
• The evaluation and acceptance of project outcomes shall be conducted by the Acceptance Committee which was established by the President, based on the project acceptance dossier.

8. Criteria for evaluating research project outcomes include:

• Achievement of research objectives: publications in international scientific journals, presentations at international scientific conferences or symposiums, specialized monographs in accordance with the University’s international publication evaluation standards, patents or inventions, or certifications of research outcomes applied in the creation of valuable products by enterprises or organizations.
• The project execution, the quality of the final report, and the identification of institutions utilizing the research outcomes;
• Evaluations from experts in the Acceptance Committee.

The projects shall be evaluated at one of two levels: “Complete” or “Incomplete.” A project is deemed “Complete” if at least 75% of the attending members present in the Acceptance Committee vote for this classification.

9. Recognition, Processing of Acceptance Outcomes, and Contract Liquidation

• Upon the Committee’s acceptance and evaluation results, the President shall issue a decision to officially recognize the project outcomes.
• The acceptance and evaluation results of the project shall serve as the basis for financial settlement procedures and contract liquidation and act as a prerequisite for the Principal Investigator’s eligibility for a new project.
• If a project is rated as “Incomplete” or its research contract is terminated, the Principal Investigator shall be required to reimburse a partial amount or up to 100% of the allocated funding. The exact reimbursement amount shall be determined by the Appraisal Committee, taking into account the completed workload. Furthermore, a Principal Investigator of an “Incomplete” project shall be ineligible to lead a new project in the subsequent year. However, if the project’s incompletion is attributed to force majeure circumstances, the University shall conduct a thorough review to make a final determination.

(Extracting from Decision No 2516/QĐ-TĐT, dated September 8th, 2022 about "Regulations on the appraisal, selection, evaluation, and acceptance of institutional-level scientific research project")