No no, methodology, (The description of the research methodology), I mentioned all the details, but the comment refers to the detailsMSCA-IF-RI-LIF-2020 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 2:19 amWhat do you mean M&M? Did you format your proposal like a paper? Sorry naive Q maybe. I wouldn't suggest to do that, I mean if you are only using transcriptomics fine but each WP can be different still depending on processing samples, batch effects, analysis etc.LAVIN1234@1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:53 amGuys, my proposal is about transcriptomic studies. What should I mention for the materials and methods section? I received terrible comments. Please guide.
ENV panel
Agricultural, transcriptomic
2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)
-
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:50 pm
Re: 2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)
-
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:50 pm
Re: 2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)
Transcriptomics analysis + interaction between plant and pathogenLAVIN1234@1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:39 amNo no, methodology, (The description of the research methodology), I mentioned all the details, but the comment refers to the detailsMSCA-IF-RI-LIF-2020 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 2:19 amWhat do you mean M&M? Did you format your proposal like a paper? Sorry naive Q maybe. I wouldn't suggest to do that, I mean if you are only using transcriptomics fine but each WP can be different still depending on processing samples, batch effects, analysis etc.LAVIN1234@1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:53 amGuys, my proposal is about transcriptomic studies. What should I mention for the materials and methods section? I received terrible comments. Please guide.
ENV panel
Agricultural, transcriptomic
Re: 2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)
The only thing I can contribute is that on my first submission (failure) and from comments I received from someone who has served on an evaluation panel before, they both said basically the same thing: not enough detail. So, everything should be crystal clear. I spent a long time adding every detail I could think would be relevant to what I was describing and be as clear as possible fit as much details. I decided to approach it as better to be very thorough about everything and have less in my proposal than to have a lot proposed but no detail. This time I was successful and they did like my attention to detail.LAVIN1234@1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:45 amTranscriptomics analysis + interaction between plant and pathogenLAVIN1234@1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:39 amNo no, methodology, (The description of the research methodology), I mentioned all the details, but the comment refers to the detailsMSCA-IF-RI-LIF-2020 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 2:19 am
What do you mean M&M? Did you format your proposal like a paper? Sorry naive Q maybe. I wouldn't suggest to do that, I mean if you are only using transcriptomics fine but each WP can be different still depending on processing samples, batch effects, analysis etc.
-
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:24 pm
Re: RE-EVALUATION! revisor's MISTAKE
I would suggest you write directly to the EC. Because if I am not wrong the appeal is only for procedural matters not for the content of the evaluation. But I might be wrong. Anyway, I wouldn't give it up because this is a really big fault from the evaluators side.
Best of luck!
quote=MSCA-IF-RI-LIF-2020 post_id=15481 time=1612990151 user_id=1197]
But you would need to now get very high (almost 5) in excellence and you have lost 8% in implementation, but worth a try!
[/quote]
Best of luck!
quote=MSCA-IF-RI-LIF-2020 post_id=15481 time=1612990151 user_id=1197]
You should for sure appeal!!Ila-MSCA wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 9:20 pmST-LIF: Guys, I NEED YOUR HELP PLEASE! I got terrible comments on the project (Excellence)... I was so sorry... BUT ... BUT... reading carefully the comments, they made the medline on the wrong protein, saying that the project was not new at all ... but they spelt the molecule out in the WRONG WAY, and of course all the revision is not consistent with my project. As often happens in biology, similar acronyms are used, for extremely different stuff. My protein has never been studied in my field, the protein he/she wrote about, is extremely studied. This influenced the score, that was 2.5 out of 5... in the IMPACT section I got 5/5, in the Implementation 3/5 because of a shorter duration of the project (15 months).
I felt 15 months to be appropriate for a pioneering study. But of course, the revisor did not even get what I was going to study because search on the wrong protein.
What should I do now?
Thank you
But you would need to now get very high (almost 5) in excellence and you have lost 8% in implementation, but worth a try!
[/quote]
-
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2021 1:58 pm
Re: RE-EVALUATION! revisor's MISTAKE
So, the protein (the one the reviewers has in mind) has been well studied/understood but 15 month is not enough to study it, although the project impact would be excellent? [facepalm]
[/quote]AdinaBabesh wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:20 amI would suggest you write directly to the EC. Because if I am not wrong the appeal is only for procedural matters not for the content of the evaluation. But I might be wrong. Anyway, I wouldn't give it up because this is a really big fault from the evaluators side.
Best of luck!
quote=MSCA-IF-RI-LIF-2020 post_id=15481 time=1612990151 user_id=1197]You should for sure appeal!!Ila-MSCA wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 9:20 pmST-LIF: Guys, I NEED YOUR HELP PLEASE! I got terrible comments on the project (Excellence)... I was so sorry... BUT ... BUT... reading carefully the comments, they made the medline on the wrong protein, saying that the project was not new at all ... but they spelt the molecule out in the WRONG WAY, and of course all the revision is not consistent with my project. As often happens in biology, similar acronyms are used, for extremely different stuff. My protein has never been studied in my field, the protein he/she wrote about, is extremely studied. This influenced the score, that was 2.5 out of 5... in the IMPACT section I got 5/5, in the Implementation 3/5 because of a shorter duration of the project (15 months).
I felt 15 months to be appropriate for a pioneering study. But of course, the revisor did not even get what I was going to study because search on the wrong protein.
What should I do now?
Thank you
But you would need to now get very high (almost 5) in excellence and you have lost 8% in implementation, but worth a try!
-
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:50 pm
Re: 2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)
Thank you very much, it was very helpfulShathlia wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 7:59 amThe only thing I can contribute is that on my first submission (failure) and from comments I received from someone who has served on an evaluation panel before, they both said basically the same thing: not enough detail. So, everything should be crystal clear. I spent a long time adding every detail I could think would be relevant to what I was describing and be as clear as possible fit as much details. I decided to approach it as better to be very thorough about everything and have less in my proposal than to have a lot proposed but no detail. This time I was successful and they did like my attention to detail.LAVIN1234@1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:45 amTranscriptomics analysis + interaction between plant and pathogenLAVIN1234@1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:39 am
No no, methodology, (The description of the research methodology), I mentioned all the details, but the comment refers to the details
Re: 2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)
My supervisor got two fellows this year: Myself, a European fellow and a colleague who will be a global fellow.
Edit: The university might get more than that, I could be wrong.
Re: 2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)
Re: 2020 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2020)
Not from NCP France but through "dreamgirl" its 12 in RI my score 92.2 and cutoff 92.4. Not sure its believable or not. What are my chances?