Article 1 : Objet du Concours

These rules govern the contest aimed at awarding the Roland Douce Grant in tribute to the founder of the LPCV. The contest aims to promote academic excellence and scientific research and to contribute to the learning of the researcher's profession in its dimension of fundraising and potentially mentoring.

Article 2 : Conditions de Participation

1.     Le concours est ouvert à tous les non permanents docteurs et futurs docteurs travaillant au LPCV.

2.     Les candidats doivent soumettre un dossier de candidature complet, comprenant un curriculum vitae (2 pages maximum), un court résumé du travail sur lequel le candidat est actuellement recruté (1 page maximum, en précisant la date de fin de contrat) et un projet de recherche réalisable en une année maximum (2 pages maximum, avec un résumé illustré en sus). Le dossier devra être sous la forme d’un pdf unique du type VotreNom.pdf

3.     Candidates must be able to complete the proposed project before the end of their contract.

Article 3 : Modalités de Participation

1.     Candidates must submit their application file before the deadline indicated in the call for applications.

2.     Application files must be sent electronically to the address specified in the call for applications.

3.     Application files must be written in French. For non-French-speaking candidates, they may submit an English version in addition to the French version (which can be automatically translated).

4.     Any incomplete file or received after the deadline will be automatically rejected.

Article 4 : Jury et Sélection des Lauréats

1.     A jury will be appointed by the board of the LPCV alumni. It will primarily consist of its members and will be responsible for evaluating the application files. 

2.     Evaluation criteria will include academic excellence, relevance and originality of research, as well as potential impact in the scientific field. The evaluation grid is provided in Annex 1 of these rules.

3.     Special attention will be paid to the compatibility of the proposed project with the candidate's main work for which they were hired.

4.     The jury will select the winners of the contest impartially, and its decision will be final and not subject to appeal.

Article 5 : Annonce du Lauréat

1.     The name of the winner will be publicly announced on the website of the LPCV alumni association (www.LPCV-alumni.fr). The winner will also be individually informed by email.www.LPCV-alumni.fr.

2.     The verdict will be rendered no later than 2 months after the deadline for submitting applications. 

Article 6 : Attribution de la Bourse

1.     The grant will take the form of an internal credit line at the LPCV.

2.     The amount of the grant is €4500, for use in the year following its award, provided that the winner remains a member of the LPCV.

3.     Le lauréat s’engage à présenter ses résultats (sous forme d’une conférence) au LPCV et au LPCV Alumni, au plus tard un an et trois mois après l’attribution de la bourse.

Article 7 : Dispositions Finales

1.     Participation in the contest implies unconditional acceptance of these rules.

2.     The organizers reserve the right to make changes to the rules if exceptional circumstances require it. Participants will be informed through the official communication channels of the contest.

 

The President of the LPCV Alumni Association, 

Dimitri Tolleter 

 

 

 

 

Annexe 1 :

 

Grille d’évaluation : 

1. Excellence (/2)

2. Impact (/5)

3. Originalité (/5)

4. Qualité et efficacité de la mise en œuvre (faisabilité) (/8)

Total : /20

 

Evaluation

 

Scoring must be in the range from 0-5. Half-marks may be given.

 

0 — The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information.

 

1 — Poor. The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.

 

2 — Fair. The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses.

 

3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present.

 

4 — Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of shortcomings are present.

 

5 — Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion. Any shortcomings are minor.