Evaluation criteria and scoring

Proposals are assessed by independent experts on a 0–5 scale under three weighted criteria (Horizon Europe Annex D). Thresholds: 4/5 Excellence, 4/5 Impact, 3/5 Implementation; overall ≥10/15.

1. Excellence (weight 1)

* Clarity & pertinence of objectives – must explicitly map to every Expected Outcome and Scope bullet.

* Soundness of methodology – interdisciplinary design, robustness, replicability, appropriate statistics, integration of SSH and gender.

* Credibility of the concept – clear hypothesis on nutrient–microbiome–brain mechanisms; justified choice of cohorts / models.

* Innovative potential – novel biomarkers, omics pipelines, citizen-science tools, policy co-creation methodologies.

* Quality of open-science practices – early sharing, preregistration, data FAIRness plan.

2. Impact (weight 1)

* Scale & significance of expected outcomes for EU policies (Food 2030, Mental Health Communication, NCD Initiative, CAP, Green Deal).

* Credible pathways to impact – KPI table linking outputs → outcomes → impacts; uptake by policymakers & professionals.

* Dissemination, exploitation, communication – tailored to children, adults, older persons, vulnerable groups; multilingual campaigns.

* Contribution to EU strategic autonomy & SDGs – resilience of food systems, reduction of NCD burden, gender & inclusion benefits.

* Barriers & mitigation measures – regulatory, behavioural, market, ethical.

3. Quality & efficiency of the implementation (weight 1)

* Coherence & effectiveness of the work plan – measurable milestones, deliverables (T0+6, T0+12...), critical interdependencies.

* Consortium suitability – complementarity, previous collaboration, stakeholder coverage (MAA), management structures, advisory board.

* Allocation of resources – budget vs. tasks, justified lump-sum shares, access to infrastructures, risk management.

* Project governance & quality assurance – decision-making, gender-balanced leadership, IPR strategy, data governance, ethics compliance.

Cross-cutting elements checked

* Multi-Actor Approach evidence in tasks, deliverables & budget.

* Citizen & civil-society engagement quality.

* Gender dimension in research content & organisational equality plan.

* Ethics & security self-assessment.

* Synergies and avoidance of duplication with ERA4Health, JPND, EU-FINGERS, relevant Missions/Partnerships.

Proposals excelling in all sub-points and presenting a compelling, risk-mitigated plan are most likely to score ≥14/15 and to be funded.

Application strategy – Step-by-step guide

1. Build a purpose-fit consortium

* Combine clinical psychologists / psychiatrists, nutritionists, gut-microbiome scientists, omics labs, data scientists, social & behavioural scientists, communication experts, SMEs (functional foods, diagnostics, digital health), patient & citizen organisations, public authorities.

* Cover the whole food system: primary producers → processors → retail/food services → consumers.

* Secure at least one partner able to coordinate Citizen Science pilots and one with recognised FAIR data expertise.

2. Map the call text to work packages

| Call requirement | Dedicated WP | Key leads |

|------------------|-------------|-----------|

| Identify critical food groups & nutrients | WP1 – Nutritional epidemiology | Univ. Public Health |

| 3-axis diet–microbiome–host mechanisms & biomarkers | WP2 – Multi-omics | Genomics Institute |

| Communication materials & prevention campaigns | WP3 – Science communication | Health NGO |

| Recommendations on nutrient deficiencies/excesses | WP4 – Policy interface | National Food Agency |

| Citizen Science & MAA activities | WP5 – Engagement | Living-Lab SME |

| Data management, ethics, gender | WP6 – Transversal | Research Infrastructures |

| Project management & synergy | WP7 – Coordination | Coordinator |

3. Design a robust methodology

* Triangulate: longitudinal cohort analysis, controlled dietary interventions, mechanistic animal/cell studies, qualitative SSH research.

* Integrate metagenomics, metabolomics, proteomics with psychometric and socio-economic data; apply AI/ML for biomarker discovery.

* Embed sex/gender-specific analyses and stratify by age (children 3–17, adults 18–64, 65+).

* Pilot digital tools (apps, wearables) for real-time diet and mood tracking.

4. Maximise impact

* Draft a clear pathway-to-impact diagram showing how outputs lead to the seven Expected Outcomes and Food 2030 Pathway 7 targets.

* Commit to open-access publications, preprints, data repositories and alignment with EOSC.

* Co-create policy briefs with DG SANTE, EFSA, WHO Europe, and national ministries.

* Plan for post-project exploitation (e.g. licensing of biomarkers, spin-offs for personalised nutrition services).

5. Nail the lump-sum budget

* Use a bottom-up cost-building sheet, then translate into lump-sum work-package values.

* Include 10–15 % contingency buffer inside WP values; no amendments possible for overspend once lump-sum is fixed.

* Demonstrate value for money by benchmarking against similar Horizon projects.

6. Perfect the proposal package

* Respect 45-page limit (Part B) – allocate ~15 pp Excellence, 15 pp Impact, 15 pp Implementation.

* Provide 1-page graphical abstract, risk matrix, Gantt chart, PERT diagram, data-flow schematic.

* Perform an internal mock evaluation with external reviewers 6 weeks before submission.

* Finalise letters of commitment from stakeholders and policy end-users.

7. Submission timeline

* T-8 months: Consortium agreement draft & concept note

* T-5 months: First full draft

* T-2 months: Complete budget tables & administrative forms

* T-1 month: Final proofreading, ethics review, upload to Portal

* Submit 48 h before deadline to avoid IT or last-minute errors.