2026 International Joint Initiative for Research Harnessing Disruptive Technology to Address Global Challenges: Merit Indicators for the Review of Applications

Disruptive technology, as defined in the competition overview, is central to the project.

The proposed project directly addresses at least one Sustainable Development Goal (SDG).

The proposal does not convincingly justify that the technology in question meets the definition of a disruptive technology and/or that the project will directly address one or more SDGs.

Designed from an interdisciplinary perspective.

The proposal seems to describe an interdisciplinary component “added on” to a more conventional project or program of research.

Integrates information, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts or theories from two or more disciplines or bodies of specialized knowledge. The project incorporates disciplines from at least two of the three broad areas: natural sciences and engineering; social sciences and humanities; and health and life sciences.

Explains how the disciplinary perspectives, methodologies and techniques will be integrated, implemented and maintained throughout the project.

The various disciplinary approaches and perspectives are fully integrated; the project is not an amalgamation of disciplinary-specific approaches.

The interdisciplinary nature of the project is achieved through an amalgamation of projects/activities that are disciplinary, reflecting a multidisciplinary rather than interdisciplinary approach.

Does not adequately explain how the interdisciplinary approaches will be integrated, implemented and maintained throughout the project.

The interdisciplinary approach is reflected in the team.

The team does not reflect the expertise required to execute the interdisciplinary approach.

Shows understanding of EDI considerations / systemic barriers in the context of the research team.

Concrete and specific examples are cited in analysis.

Demonstrates a strong commitment to EDI overall.

Analysis of context is generic and/or does not point to one or more systemic barriers.

Evidence of commitment to EDI overall is lacking.

Lists at least one concrete practice that targets the specific context listed for each area.

A concrete practice is not listed for one or more of the areas, or the concrete practices listed are not related to the context that was described.

Provides a description of how the concrete practice has been/will be realistically implemented.

Careful thought has been given to inclusion considerations in the recruitment, training and mentoring plan.

Efforts to establish a diverse team, inclusive working environment and equitable opportunities for all team members are apparent.

Strong evidence of accounting for members’ needs and engaging support systems (as necessary) to ensure equitable contributions of each person.

Provides no or an unclear description of how the concrete practice will be implemented.

The implementation plan is unrealistic or does not offer a well-thought-out plan to address inclusion considerations.

Explains how the concrete practice will impact EDI, and describes an appropriate methodology for measuring success, including specific stepwise and overall evaluation criteria.

Gives no indication of how the impact will be measured.

Does not explain the anticipated impact of the concrete practice on EDI or how it will be measured.

The international team fully integrates, in a manner that can be a model for other projects, expertise and perspectives from a variety of regions and disciplinary backgrounds, as appropriate, to meet the objectives of the project.

The international team integrates expertise and perspectives from a variety of regions and disciplinary backgrounds, as appropriate, to meet the objectives of the project.

The team includes expertise and perspectives from more than one region and/or disciplinary background, but the level of integration between the perspectives is not evident.

The team is missing expertise and/or perspectives that would have made the project approach more novel, and the outcomes more impactful.

The application clearly demonstrates that the research team has the required expertise in all relevant disciplines to meet the objectives.

The application demonstrates that the research team likely has the required expertise in all relevant disciplines to help meet the objectives.

The application demonstrates that the research team has most of the required expertise, though some aspects may be missing or insufficiently described.

The application does not clearly demonstrate that the research team has all the required expertise to complete the work.

An exceptionally innovative approach, building on the latest methods, concepts, information and techniques.

A significantly innovative approach that incorporates advanced techniques and methodologies from several disciplines.

Represents a well-thought-out approach that is an innovative variation on a conventional approach.

Represents a conventional approach to the problem.

Research objectives, design, methodology and proposed analysis approaches are clearly articulated, comprehensive and follow best practices that will ensure high quality, reproducible research results.

Research objectives, design, methodology and proposed analysis approaches are clear and comprehensive, and mostly follow best practices that will ensure high quality, reproducible research results.

Research objectives, design, methodology and proposed analysis approaches are lacking clarity. It is difficult to assess if few best practices for high quality research will be followed.

There are concerns regarding the quality and rigour of the project, due to a lack of clarity in research objectives, design, methodology and/or analysis approaches.  

Highly compelling case for why the approach is likely to succeed where others have failed.

Compelling case for why the approach is plausible and likely to succeed.

The application is somewhat persuasive in terms of the potential of the approach.

The application is not convincing in terms of the potential of the approach.

(Note: The viability of the project plan is assessed under the Feasibility criterion. The focus of this element is on the persuasiveness of the argument.)

Very significant scientific impact.

Significant scientific impact.

Notable scientific impact.

Limited scientific impact.

Very significant economic, artistic, cultural, social, technological or health impact.

Significant economic, artistic, cultural, social, technological or health impact.

Notable economic, artistic, cultural, social, technological or health impact.

Limited economic, artistic, cultural, social, technological or health impact.

The substantial change that is likely to result is clearly defined and specific, and relates directly to an SDG.

There is a solid plan to measure the impact, with a focus on implementing, testing and refining solutions to maximize potential impact.

The significance of the stepwise and overall anticipated change is clearly described.

The substantial change that is likely to result is clearly described and relates directly to an SDG.

There is a sound approach to measure the impact. An implementation, testing and refinement of solutions to maximize impact is planned, although limited in scope.

The significance of the overall anticipated change is described, but there is lack of detail regarding the stepwise approach.

The substantial change that is likely to result is described in broad terms.

The anticipated change aligns with an SDG.

There is a vague approach to measure the impact. An implementation, testing and refinement process to maximize impact is mentioned but not well described.

The significance of the anticipated change is broadly described.

There is lack of clarity or specificity about the substantial change that is likely to result, or the change does not relate to an SDG.

The proposal lacks a plan or approach to measure the impact. There is no implementation, testing and refinement processes planned to maximize impact.

The significance of the anticipated change is not sufficiently articulated.

Major impact on a single or small number of groups, communities or subpopulations, with lessons for other contexts and strong potential for impact on large or multiple communities.

The project is likely to produce effective strategies related to technology, policy, communication and community engagement, which will encourage implementation in other groups, communities or subpopulations.

Substantial impact on a single or small number or groups, communities or subpopulations, with lessons for others and potential to impact large or multiple communities.

There are plans to develop strategies related to technology, policy, communication and community engagement, which should help implementation in other groups, communities or subpopulations.

Limited impact on a single or small number of groups, communities or subpopulations, with either limited or no lessons for others, or limited impact on multiple communities.

There is mention of plans to develop strategies related to technology, policy, communication and community engagement, but the plans lack details.

No meaningful impact on any groups or communities, with limited or no lessons for others, and no impact on multiple communities.

There is no mention of plans or means to investigate and develop strategies related to technology, policy, communication and community engagement.

There is a strong likelihood that the significant impact will be realized.

Potential for knowledge uptake and use is high, as evidenced by thoughtful consideration and involvement of potential users in the co-creation of the research.

There is a reasonable likelihood that the significant impact will be realized.

Knowledge uptake is likely. Potential users are involved in the project.

There is a chance that the significant impact will be realized.

The potential for knowledge uptake is limited.

It is unlikely that the significant impact will be realized.

The potential for knowledge uptake is low because there is insufficient engagement of potential users.

Short-term benefits are significant, clearly defined and specific, and a detailed measurement plan is in place.

Short-term benefits are notable, clearly described, and a detailed measurement plan is in place.

Short-term benefits are described and will be measured, but the measurement plan lacks details.

There is a lack of clarity or specificity about the short-term benefits that will result.

The application demonstrates that the research team has strong awareness of current and relevant research and prior art or knowledge.

The application demonstrates that the research team is aware of most current and relevant research, and prior art or knowledge.

The application demonstrates that the research team lacks awareness of relevant research or prior art or knowledge in one aspect/discipline related to the project.

The proposed project does not seem to consider current and relevant research and prior art or knowledge (for example, by proposing approaches that have been tested and failed).

The proposed work plan, including the methodological approach, is well described, reasonable and likely to be achievable within the proposed time frame.

The proposed work plan, including the methodological approach, is described, reasonable and likely to be mostly achievable within the proposed time frame.

The proposed work plan is reasonable. The methodological approach is lacking detail. The project objectives might be met within the proposed time frame.

The proposed work plan is not reasonable/feasible. The methodological approach is missing or flawed. It is unlikely that the project objectives will be met within the proposed time frame.

EDI-RD considerations have been integrated into the methodological approach. The impact on the methodological approach and/or design has been clearly described.

EDI-RD considerations have been integrated into the methodological approach. The impact on the methodological approach and/or design has been described.

EDI-RD considerations have been integrated. The impact on the methodological approach or design has not been described.

EDI-RD considerations have not been integrated into the methodological approach or design.

Co-creation, co-leadership and co-ownership with relevant stakeholders is clearly integrated in the project’s design.

Attention to equitable processes and procedures for fair and respectful inclusion of stakeholders is evident.

The proposed budget reflects an equitable approach, with funds flowing to engaged communities, where applicable.

Active engagement and reciprocity with relevant stakeholders are present and clearly described.

Some attention to equitable processes and procedures for fair and respectful inclusion of stakeholders is evident.

The proposed budget includes reasonable funds flowing to engaged communities, where applicable.

There is modest engagement and reciprocity with relevant stakeholders. The methodological approach and/or theoretical framework do not adequately reflect equitable stakeholder engagement.

The proposed budget includes little or no funds flowing to engaged communities, where applicable.

Engagement and reciprocity with relevant stakeholders appear to be lacking or have not been described.

The research is designed with use in mind, with a very well-considered and detailed plan for engagement with stakeholders and end users (including ensuring findings are accessible and user-friendly).

The research is designed with use in mind, with a plan for engagement with stakeholders and end users (including ensuring findings are accessible and user-friendly).

There is engagement of potential users in the project but no plan to ensure uptake.

There is no engagement with potential users and/or no plan to ensure uptake.

The proposed project is excellent value for money, proposing efficient and effective use of resources to achieve the intended impact.

The proposed project is good value for money, although lacking in some detail to assess the efficient use of resources.

The intended impact(s) of the project are acceptable in relation to the level of resources requested.

The intended impact of the project is deemed insufficient for the level of resources requested.

A thorough assessment of the potential environmental impact of the project has been completed, and a sound approach to minimize the environmental footprint is in place.

An assessment of the potential environmental impact of the project has been completed, and some consideration as to how to minimize the environmental footprint is evident.

A limited assessment of the potential environmental impact of the project has been completed, and/or little consideration as to how to minimize the environmental footprint is included.

No assessment of the potential environmental impact of the project has been completed and/or no consideration has been given as to how to minimize the environmental footprint.

The research environment is enriching for and provides numerous opportunities and support for the next generation of researchers.

The research environment is enriching for and provides some opportunities for the next generation of researchers.

There are limited opportunities for trainees to participate and/or the research environment is suitable but not enriching for the next generation of researchers.

There are few opportunities and/or inadequate support for the next generation of researchers to participate and/or the research environment is not suitable for their involvement.

There are sound plans in place related to:

• the administration/
  management of the project and grant;
• performance measurement;
• training (if applicable); and data management.

There are sound plans in place related to most of the following:

• the administration/
  management of the project and grant;
• performance measurement;
• training (if applicable); and data management.

There are sound plans in place related to some of the following:

• the administration/
  management of the project and grant;
• performance measurement;
• training (if applicable); and data management.

There are a lack of sound plans in place related to:

• the administration/
  management of the project and grant;
• performance measurement;
• training (if applicable); and/or data management.

The research team has acquired or has concrete plans to acquire the necessary resources to complete the work. All aspects have been described.

The research team has acquired or has concrete plans to acquire the necessary resources to complete the work. Some aspects have not been well described.

The application demonstrates that the research team has acquired or has concrete plans to acquire most of the resources to complete the work. Some aspects may be missing or insufficiently described.

The application does not clearly demonstrate that the research team has acquired or has concrete plans to acquire the necessary resources to complete the work.