1. According to article 5 of RJEC, the selection is made through the evaluation of the scientific and curricular path of the candidates.
2. The evaluation of the scientific and curricular path focuses on relevance, quality and timeliness:
a) of the scientific, technological, academic, cultural or artistic production during the last five years and considered more relevant by the candidate;
b) of the applied or practice-based research activities developed over the last five years and considered as having the greatest impact by the candidate;
c) of the activities of extension and dissemination of knowledge developed during the last five years, in particular in the context of promoting the culture and scientific practices considered by the candidate to be of greater relevance;
d) of the activities of science, technology and innovation programs management or of the experience in observing and monitoring the scientific and technological system or higher education, in Portugal or abroad.
3. The period of five years referred to in the preceding paragraph may be increased by the jury, at the request of the candidate, when justified on grounds of suspension of scientific activity for socially protected reasons, namely for reasons of parental leave, prolonged serious illness, and other situations of unavailability for work legally protected.
4. The assessment criteriaare set out in this entry, with the option mentioned in point 10 with particular emphasis on the curriculum vitae and the contributions considered to be of higher relevance by the candidate in the last 3 years:
15.1. Quality of the scientific, technological, cultural or artistic production, considered more relevant by the candidate, and relevant to the project to be developed, which was given a weighting factor of 60% considering:
(i) Scientific publications: a parameter which takes into account books, chapters of books, articles in scientific journals and international conference proceedings of which the applicant was the author or co-author, considering:
• its nature;
• its impact;
• the scientific / technological level and innovation;
• diversity and multidisciplinary;
• international collaboration;
• the importance of contributions to the advancement of the current state of knowledge;
• the importance of the works that have been selected by the candidate as most representative, in particular as regards their contribution to the development and evolution of the scientific area for which the competition is open.
ii) Coordination and participation in scientific projects: a parameter that takes into account the participation and coordination of scientific projects by the candidate, subject to competitive bidding, considering:
• the territorial scope and its size;
• the technological level and the importance of the contributions;
• innovation and diversity.
iii) Accompaniment and orientation of students, trainees and research fellows: a parameter that takes into account the orientation of doctoral students, master's and undergraduate students, trainees and research fellows taking into account the number, quality, scope and scientific / technological impact of the resulting publications, theses, dissertations and final course papers, distinguishing especially the awarded works and the international recognition.
15.2 Activities of extension and dissemination of knowledge, particularly in the context of the promotion of culture and scientific practices, considered of greater relevance by the candidate, and relevant to the project to be developed, which was given a weighting factor of 20% considering:
i) Publications of scientific and technological outreach: parameter that takes into account the articles in magazines and national conferences and other publications of scientific and technological diffusion, taking into account their professional and social impact.
ii) Services to the scientific community and to society: a parameter that takes into account the participation and coordination of scientific and technological dissemination initiatives and taking into account the nature and results achieved by them when carried out towards:
• the scientific community, including the organization of conferences;
• the media.
15.3.In weighing the evaluation criteria listed in paragraphs 15.1 and 15.2, each jury member may consider the following additional parameters under the following conditions, with a weighting factor of 20% considering:
15.3.1.a contribution to the development and evolution of Computer science in the fields of user experience design, interaction design and related areas;
15.3.1.b experience in web and mobile programming;
15.3.1.c Ability to produce physical designs as well as electronic prototypes of medium and high-fidelity; Interest and ability to work with geolocation and geosocial solutions and networking
5. The jury may decide to select up to 3 candidates who will be called to hold a session presenting the results of their investigation, following which the jury members should stimulate an open debate on its content and innovative character. This presentation session does not constitute a selection method and is not classified, aiming merely to obtain explanations or clarifications of elements contained in the candidates' curricula.
6. The Jury, when it deems it necessary, may request the candidate to present additional documents proving the candidate's statements, which are relevant to the analysis and classification of his/her application.
7. Classification of candidates
18.1. Each member of the jury assigned a classification to each of the candidates in each evaluation criterion, on a scale of 0 to 100 points, ranking the candidates according to their classification consisting on the sum of the partial classifications assigned in each evaluation criterion, and considering the weighting factor given to each parameter.
18.2. Candidates shall be ordered by applying the successive voting method.
18.3. The jury decides by absolute majority, and abstentions are not allowed.
18.4. The final classification of each candidate is the one corresponding to his or her ranking resulting from the application of the method referred to in point 18.2.
8. Minutes of the jury meetings are drawn up, which contain a summary of what has taken place in them, as well as the votes cast by each of the members and their reasons, being available to the candidates whenever requested.
9. The final deliberation of the jury is approved by the President of M-ITI, and it is his responsibility to establish the respective contract.
10. The false statements made by the candidates will be punished according to the law.
11. The list of admitted and excluded candidates as well as the final ranking list are posted on the premises of M-ITI Human Resources Division, advertised on the website of M-ITI, and the applicants will be notified by email of the notification.
12. Prior Hearing and Deadline for Final Decision: After being notified, candidates have 10 working days to submit a formal rebuttal. Within the term of 90 days, counted from the deadline for the presentation of the candidacies, the final decisions of the jury are given.
13. This tender is exclusively intended to fill the vacancy indicated and may be terminated until the homologation of the final ranking list of candidates and expiring with the respective occupation of the working position on offer.
14. Under the terms of D.L. No. 29/2001, of February 3, a disabled candidate has a preference when in equal classification, which prevails over any other legal preference. Candidates must declare on the application form their respective degree of disability, the type of disability and the means of communication / expression to be used in the selection process, under the terms of the aforementioned diploma.
15. The selection process will be based on the principle of non-discrimination in respect of gender, age, nationality, religion, racial group, or any other possible discriminatory issue. Selection will be made only based on merit and following the European Charter for Researchers, the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers (Commission Recommendation, Brussels, 11.3.2005, 2005/251/EC) and the recommendations from the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).