2021 Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellowship (HE-MSCA-PF-2021)

[triad_Mon]

Just a side question. Do they take the number of publications into account when giving a score? For example, for an applicant with a couple of years of post-doc experience, are there instances of people having less than 5 publications getting funded or instances of people with more than 25 publications getting rejected with very low scores?

I read one document of evaluation criteria for reviewers saying that applicants can be punished if reviewers think the track record of applicants does not match with their career stage.

In the previous year post, I also read a person failed with several first-author papers in top-journals.

Ah, there is still the myth of top journals? I got mine a few years after the end of my PhD with very few publications on very low impact journals.

I think also it says explicitly on the manual that by 'high impact' they don't mean journal impact factor.

[Fu Manchu]

Only the reviewers are decision makers. Number of papers and years of experience will not help if it is not justified in the proposal in the section for two way transfer of knowledge.

Just a side question. Do they take the number of publications into account when giving a score? For example, for an applicant with a couple of years of post-doc experience, are there instances of people having less than 5 publications getting funded or instances of people with more than 25 publications getting rejected with very low scores?

Indeed. This a training fellowship, so you need to justify why the hell they should fund you. If you are a top researcher, you need to clarify what you can achieve. It is not about who you are and what you have done, but how you are gonna acquire knowledge with the fellowship.

Btw, I got into ranking before 19:00 yesterday. Not sure when. Last year I got the SoE, but no funding and I was close, but no cigar from the reserve list. Anyway, dont freak out. This fellowship is difficult as f#&%. This year will be even harder than the previous ones.

[oldchap]

Honest question. How do they count the marks to be 100%?

I presume that they total up the Excellence part i.e. per 5 marks (50% weighted), Impact i.e. per 5 marks (30% weighted) and Implementation i.e. per 5 marks (20% weighted). If the marking for each category is only up to 1 decimal place, then the range of marks obtained will not be that much of difference between the applicants isn't it?

[alozzup]

This is so stressful. Last night Eastern Time I was still in Submission, now (10:30am ET) I'm in ranking. I guess that the only thing we know for sure is that they're on time and we will know results by the deadline!

[althusser]

Honest question. How do they count the marks to be 100%?

I presume that they total up the Excellence part i.e. per 5 marks (50% weighted), Impact i.e. per 5 marks (30% weighted) and Implementation i.e. per 5 marks (20% weighted). If the marking for each category is only up to 1 decimal place, then the range of marks obtained will not be that much of difference between the applicants isn't it?

According to the evaluator’s manual of 2018, one can give a score from 0 to 5 using just one decimal. Page 29.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default ... tors_0.pdf

[aspil]

This is my third attempt. However, I still do not know what the evaluation criteria is. Last time, I did not have any negative feedback for the 'excellence' part. Still, the score was 4.8/5.0

[KathyHappy]

I don't understand, isn't it normal that you didn't get negative feedbacks for the excellence part? You almost achieved the full score.

This is my third attempt. However, I still do not know what the evaluation criteria is. Last time, I did not have any negative feedback for the 'excellence' part. Still, the score was 4.8/5.0

[Bahador]

I don't understand, isn't it normal that you didn't get negative feedbacks for the excellence part? You almost achieved the full score.

This is my third attempt. However, I still do not know what the evaluation criteria is. Last time, I did not have any negative feedback for the 'excellence' part. Still, the score was 4.8/5.0

All to say, after being tight and some fundamental strength in targeting the problem you seek the answer for or your novel idea, the proposal should sound clear and fit with the period (e.g., 24 months) the applicant and the host institute's strength in fulfilling the proposed task! Sometimes is good to write with over-ambitious attitudes, but logically reviewers look at the "possibilities". if you miss addressing within the schedule that is a low mark...
5.0/5.0 the excellence, so I know pretty much what they look after...

Bless us all!

[Sleek_IF]

This is my third attempt. However, I still do not know what the evaluation criteria is. Last time, I did not have any negative feedback for the 'excellence' part. Still, the score was 4.8/5.0

By no negative comments, do you mean "no weaknesses"? If no weaknesses, were you not supposed to score full mark?

[aspil]

By no negative comments, do you mean "no weaknesses"? If no weaknesses, were you not supposed to score full mark?

Had I got 5/5, I would have been funded.
In the first attempt, there were couple of weaknesses and the score was 4.7.