Quality Logo Procedure
If the Quality Team agree by consensus that a Partner Search complies with both the Subjective and Objective criteria,
then it is given a Quality Label and published. If however, the Quality Team agree by consensus that it clearly does not meet
both set of criteria and their suggested changes or modifications are not made then it will not be published.
Exceptionally, if it passes the Objective criteria but is deemed not to pass the Subjective criteria,
then the National Representative is permitted to publish the Partner Search but it will not receive a Quality Label.

There are potentially two types of reasons for rejecting or wishing to reject a partner search as submitted:

• Objective Reason
  The search is clearly out of scope of the call. An example would be one trying to be used purely as a promotion for the originator with no project content. Another would be for a subject that clearly doesn't match the selected Challenge/Objective such as under an IP for Nano-electronics wishing to set up an on line library dealing with hunger in the third world. There should be no problem with this.
  

  Objective Criteria

  Aspect	Description
  1	Is the call and Challenge/Objective open?
  2	Is the specified instrument open for this Challenge/Objective?
  3	Does the topic match the Challenge/Objective?
  4	Is the PS open for partners from every participating country?
  5	If less than ten days deadline, does the PS only relate to last minute replacement or addition of a partner?
  6	Is the identity of the proposer given and not of a third party such a consultant as per A8 in the Handbook?

  
  If the answer to any question is no, then the PS should not be accepted without the correct modification.
• Subjective Reason
  This is something that appears not be in scope, although it may address the topic superficially. For example for something much too close to the market such as a proposal to develop a product without any innovative aspects but in the domain of the selected Objective. Given that we have some obligation not only to the proposer in not having him waste his time, but also to other potential partners who may expend considerable effort on a proposal found via Ideal-ist that had minimal chance of being accepted. However, we need to protect ourselves by having some authoritative reason for such a rejection.
  
  

  Subjective Criteria

  Aspect	Description
  1	Does the proposal outline have correct level of detail? Remeber, this is not an evaluation, therefore in depth is not required.
  2	Does the proposal description hide key competitive information? Remember competitors could read it, therefore best not give too much away.
  3	Is the idea sufficiently far from market? Remeber that normally product development is not allowed.
  4	Does the idea address any potential ethical concerns adequately?
  5	Is the proposed activity reasonable for the chosen instrument?
  6	If research, is the proposed activity innovative? It is not if you are aware of another project already doing this work or of it being commercially available.
  7	Is the proposed work within the scope of the ICT Work Program?
  8	If research, is the innovation itself in the scope of the Challenge/Objective?
  9	Is the centre of gravity of the proposed work within the scope of the Challenge/Objective? Otherwise it could be a better fit to a different Objective that is not open.
  10	Does the proposed activity match any available Objective background material? This would include notes obtained from informal meetings with the involved Head of Units or Points of Contact.
  11	Do you feel this proposal has a reasonable chance of acceptance?
  12	For a Type A, is the proposed coordinator in member or associated state?

  
  
  If the answer to any question is no, then the PS should not be accepted without the correct clarifications and perhaps modification. We shall always publish searches when in doubt i.e. err on the side of the proposer.