Research consortia that intend to submit a transnational project proposal should register via the electronic proposal system as soon as possible: https://funding.erdera.org.

There will be a two-stage submission procedure for joint applications: a pre-proposal and a full proposal stage. In both cases, one joint proposal document (in English) shall be prepared by the partners of a joint transnational proposal. The coordinator must submit it only to the JCS via the electronic submission system. Proposals must be prepared using the templates provided in the electronic system. Proposals not conforming to the template instructions will be rejected.

Call Timeline

1. 10th December 2025 - Launch of the call
2. 16th December 2025 - Information webinar for potential applicants
3. 12th February 2026 - Pre-proposal submission deadline
4. 4th March 2026 - Pre-proposal eligibility check
5. Early May 2026 - Invitation to full proposal
6. 5th May 2026 - Information webinar for applicants invited to submit a full proposal
7. 8th July 2026 - Full proposal submission deadline
8. 23rd July 2026 - Full proposal eligibility check
9. December 2026 - Notification of funding decision

Only applicants explicitly invited by the JCS may submit full proposals.

In general, fundamental changes between the pre-proposal and the full proposal stages concerning the composition of the consortia, objectives of the project, or requested budget will be considered by the CSC only when a detailed rationale for the changes is provided to the JCS. Potential justifications may include advice gathered on the feasibility of the project indicating the need for additional expertise and/or resources, or the addition of partner(s) through the widening scheme. However, the national/regional regulations on eligible partners and budget caps will still apply, and the budget change needs to be pre-approved by relevant national/regional funding organisation(s).

Further information on submitting pre-proposals and full proposals electronically (including “Guidelines for Applicants” and submission templates) is available at the ERDERA website.

1. Evaluation Process

At the pre-proposal stage, applicants should focus on presenting the scientific idea/hypothesis and supporting preliminary results, studies, or data. The applicants should describe the project, starting from an unmet need, and follow through to the expected endpoint of the study.

At the full proposal stage, in addition to the scientific content, a full description of the patient engagement plan, data management, statistical methods, and ethical and legal issues will be requested in compliance with EC requirements. Applicants should anticipate these requirements and ensure that they have consulted relevant experts to verify the feasibility of the project, and that the proposal can be completed within the defined timelines and budget (considering budget limits listed in the “Guidelines for Applicants”).

7.1 Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation scores will be awarded using a common evaluation form, according to specific criteria aligned with Horizon Europe rules (see below).

7.1.1 Scoring system

1. 0: Failure: The proposal fails to address the criterion in question or cannot be judged because of missing or incomplete information.
2. 1: Poor: The proposal shows serious weaknesses concerning the criterion.
3. 2: Fair: The proposal generally addresses the criterion, but significant weaknesses that need corrections.
4. 3: Good: The proposal addresses the criterion well, but specific improvements are necessary.
5. 4: Very good: The proposal addresses the criterion very well, but minor improvements are possible.
6. 5: Excellent: The proposal successfully addresses all aspects of the criterion.

7.1.2 Criteria

Excellence (0-5)

1. Clarity and pertinence of the objectives,
2. Credibility of the proposed approach and methodology,
3. Soundness of the concept,
4. Innovative potential: development and application of new technologies or new uses/combination of existing technologies, groundbreaking new insights into diagnosing RD
5. Competence of participating research partners in the field(s) of the proposal (e.g., previous work in the field, specific expertise), and
6. Active and meaningful participation of PAOs and patient partners in the project (including identifying and prioritising the research question, planning, design, conduct, analysis, oversight and governance, and dissemination) as well as clarity of the patient partner involvement plan.

Impact (0-5)

1. Potential of the expected results for exploitation and for future clinical, public health and/or other socio-economic health-relevant applications, including patients’ needs,
2. Benefit to patients, their families, and carers,
3. Added value of transnational collaboration: gathering a critical mass of patients/material, sharing of expertise and resources, harmonisation of data, sharing of specific know-how and/or innovative solutions,
4. Inclusion of Early Career Researchers as full partners (PI/research team leaders),
5. Involvement of industry (for a socio-economic impact and/or an acceleration of research development, access to innovation and application for patients), and
6. Effectiveness of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results (including management of intellectual property rights (IPR)), to communicate the project, and to manage research data.

Quality and efficiency of the implementation (0-5)

1. Feasibility of the project (coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks, resources and timeframe, access to data and material),
2. Complementarity of the participants within the consortium, including the integration of patient partners,
3. Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk management, contingency plans and innovation management,
4. Plan for the sustainability of infrastructures or resources initiated by the project, and
5. Use of relevant tools and standards complementary to published ERDERA diagnostic workstream documentation.

Sub-criteria 1f, 2f, 3c-e will only be assessed as part of the full proposal evaluation step.

7.2 Pre-proposal Review

Eligibility check

The JCS will check all pre-proposals to ensure they meet the call formal criteria (completeness of information in the submission platform, general eligibility criteria). The JCS will forward the proposals to the CSC members who will perform a check for compliance with country/regional eligibility rules. Please note that proposals not meeting the formal or national/regional eligibility criteria and requirements will be declined without further review.

Peer review of pre-proposals

Each pre-proposal that passes the eligibility check will be reviewed by two SEC members with biomedical expertise, based on the above evaluation criteria and scores. The SEC will then meet online to establish a ranking of the pre-proposals. This ranking will be used by the CSC to decide which pre-proposals will be invited to submit a full proposal. The JCS will then inform the coordinators about the final decision and will send later on a consensus report to all applicants. Then corresponding SEC recommendations regarding their full proposal submission will be sent together with consensus reports to the successful applicants.

Scoring rules

Each criterion will be scored out of five (5). Therefore, the maximum overall score for each proposal will be 15 points. To be approved for the full proposal stage, the application must receive a minimum threshold score of 12 points per expert vote.

Widening

At the end of this stage research teams from underrepresented or undersubscribed countries may join successful pre-proposals after approval by the relevant funding organizations (see section 1.4 in “Guidelines for Applicants” for more details). In case there are comments from the SEC that the patient involvement in a proposal is too low, additional PAO(s) may be added. They can still request funding from the Central Funding Mechanism for PAOs if they meet the eligibility criteria.

ERDERA support services

Applicants invited to submit a full proposal are strongly encouraged to make use of the ERDERA support services for FAIR data, translational mentoring and regulatory advice (see section 1.3 in “Guidelines for Applicants” for more details).

Diagnostic Research Workstream

Applicants invited to submit a full proposal are strongly encouraged to use the Diagnostic Workstream (DRW) support services for data submission, analysis, and interpretation in collaboration with ERDERA’s Data Services Hub (see section 1.3 in “Guidelines for Applicants” for details).

7.3 Full Proposal Review

Formal criteria check

The JCS will check the full proposals to ensure that they meet the call’s formal criteria with the help of the CSC.

SEC meeting evaluation

The JCS will send full proposals to the SEC members. The SEC will then meet to discuss the proposals, assign their final scores and create a ranking list with proposals that are recommended for funding. The final consensus report for each consortium will be prepared by the SEC members and sent by the JCS to respective applicants.

Scoring rules

Each proposal will be evaluated by three biomedical reviewers (including methodological reviewers) and one patient reviewer. All reviewers will be present at the SEC meeting to discuss proposals and provide their feedback.

Biomedical SEC members will score each criterion out of five. The maximum score per biomedical SEC member is 15 points with a threshold of 12 points.

Patient SEC members will assess the full proposal according to the patient-relevant evaluation criteria listed above (see 7.1.2). The maximum score per patient SEC member is 15 points with a threshold of 12 points.

Ethical evaluation

After the second SEC meeting, full proposals recommended for funding by the SEC will be remotely evaluated by independent experts in ethics. These experts will report on the feasibility of a given proposal to comply with the ethical requirements. If necessary, they will list those tasks to be done and documents to be submitted by the consortium to receive approval for funding from an ethics standpoint. Only proposals approved by both the scientific and ethical evaluations (complying with Horizon Europe and regional/national ethical requirements) will be funded.

7.4 Funding Decision

The CSC decides on the list of projects recommended for funding based on the ranking list established by the SEC, the ethical approval, and available funding.

Each CSC member organisation makes the final decision on its funding contribution according to its respective regulations, calendar and legal frameworks.

In cases where proposals receive identical scores/ranking, the CSC will determine a priority order for funding based on the below prioritization (in descending order):

1. Availability of national/regional funding,
2. Maximizing the use of national/regional funds,
3. Patient centricity of the project,
4. Proposals that address diseases not otherwise covered by a more highly ranked one,
5. Proposals with participation of underrepresented or undersubscribed countries,
6. Gender balance within consortia.

The JCS will notify all project coordinators of the final funding decision and disseminate the SEC consensus report. The list of funded projects will be published on the ERDERA dashboard.

2. Redress Procedure

Applicants can appeal against the evaluation or eligibility outcome if they suspect a breach in the evaluation and selection procedures. This redress procedure applies solely to the procedural aspects of the call. It does not reopen or challenge the scientific or technical assessments made by duly qualified experts or evaluators.

Applicants may submit their appeal to the JCS up to seven (7) calendar days following the eligibility or evaluation outcome notification by the JCS at the end of each competition stage. The proposal outcome email containing the results of the evaluation will include information on the appeals procedure, which is described below.

Admissibility of appeals

For an appeal to be admissible the following conditions must be met:

1. The appeal must be submitted by the coordinator of the proposal to which the appeal relates
2. Only one appeal per proposal will be considered
3. The appeal must be submitted via email to the JCS within the seven (7) calendar days’ deadline after receiving information on the eligibility or evaluation of the JCS. The appeal must contain the following minimum information:
4. The name of the call for proposals
5. The proposal acronym
6. The title of the proposal
7. A description of the alleged shortcomings of the evaluation procedure.

The appeal must demonstrate a procedural irregularity or a factual error. Appeals that do not meet the above conditions, or do not relate to the eligibility or evaluation of a specific proposal or express mere disagreement with the result or the reasoning of the evaluation will be judged as not suitable for redress.

Procedure

Upon receipt of an appeal, an acknowledgement of receipt will be sent by the JCS within seven (7) calendar days. The acknowledgement shall report the redress process and the anticipated date by which a decision on the appeal will be communicated to the appellant. All appeals received by the seven (7) calendar days deadline will be processed together, and the decision of the CSC will be communicated to the appellant by the JCS within seven (7) calendar days after the decision has been made.