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

[msca_wait]

The (early) Ranking does not make sense to be associated with success.
61 out of 75 have a Ranking, 30 on the 1st (several people don't know the date).
The whole thing doesn't make sense. Only if the majority of this forum are awardees.
As my NCP said,Ranking is just the proposals that got a final score above 70, and they were uploaded to the system.
Evaluation is either proposal with a score below 70, or proposals with a review+score that has not been accepted by the vice-chairs, and they were returned to the evaluators, or that they have just not been uploaded yet.

That's not true. The line between funded and not funded can be in minutes. Moreover, the logic of ranking list creation is clearly described in document which I shared earlier.

A lot of misinterpretation, that's my last post, I'm gonna wait for results and then we can imply some conclusions.

FWIW, I also think the theory about early ranking = success does not make sense. I think, like the friend above said, that ranking means >70 and evaluation means either <70 or some other specific case. But I don't think the time you go into ranking has anything to do with your score...

[pkourtes]

You said that the important sentence is the following:
"After Panel finalizes its work, proposals are automatically ranked by the SEP system in descending order of the total score in their respective panel ranking list."
This proves what I said (and my NCP) that ranking just means proposals with a final score (i.e., approved by the vice-chairs of the Panel) are uploaded to the SEP system, which (the SEP system!) then ranks the scores-proposals in descending order.
So the panel does not care to upload the proposals in an ascending or descending order, they just upload them after all the checks done, the SEP does the job. So the phase is just that.
Ranking ==> above 70
Evaluation ==> below 70 OR the score has not yet approved by the Panel's chairs in order to then be uploaded.

Here is the document for anyone interested in understanding the process: https://rea.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2 ... urope.pdf

The (early) Ranking does not make sense to be associated with success.
61 out of 75 have a Ranking, 30 on the 1st (several people don't know the date).
The whole thing doesn't make sense. Only if the majority of this forum are awardees.
As my NCP said,Ranking is just the proposals that got a final score above 70, and they were uploaded to the system.
Evaluation is either proposal with a score below 70, or proposals with a review+score that has not been accepted by the vice-chairs, and they were returned to the evaluators, or that they have just not been uploaded yet.

That's not true. The line between funded and not funded can be in minutes. Moreover, the logic of ranking list creation is clearly described in document which I shared earlier.

A lot of misinterpretation, that's my last post, I'm gonna wait for results and then we can imply some conclusions.

[UKR]

Below 85 will not be ranked. leave any exception case(s).

You said that the important sentence is the following:
"After Panel finalizes its work, proposals are automatically ranked by the SEP system in descending order of the total score in their respective panel ranking list."
This proves what I said (and my NCP) that ranking just means proposals with a final score (i.e., approved by the vice-chairs of the Panel) are uploaded to the SEP system, which (the SEP system!) then ranks the scores-proposals in descending order.
So the panel does not care to upload the proposals in an ascending or descending order, they just upload them after all the checks done, the SEP does the job. So the phase is just that.
Ranking ==> above 70
Evaluation ==> below 70 OR the score has not yet approved by the Panel's chairs in order to then be uploaded.

Here is the document for anyone interested in understanding the process: https://rea.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2 ... urope.pdf

The (early) Ranking does not make sense to be associated with success.
61 out of 75 have a Ranking, 30 on the 1st (several people don't know the date).
The whole thing doesn't make sense. Only if the majority of this forum are awardees.
As my NCP said,Ranking is just the proposals that got a final score above 70, and they were uploaded to the system.
Evaluation is either proposal with a score below 70, or proposals with a review+score that has not been accepted by the vice-chairs, and they were returned to the evaluators, or that they have just not been uploaded yet.

That's not true. The line between funded and not funded can be in minutes. Moreover, the logic of ranking list creation is clearly described in document which I shared earlier.

A lot of misinterpretation, that's my last post, I'm gonna wait for results and then we can imply some conclusions.

[UKR]

If I get rejection my NCP did not lie but all other NCPs lied.

[UKR]

In last year which country had the highest winners?

[AnotherCandidate]

In last year which country had the highest winners?

By highest winner you mean highest number of winners?

In that case, it's UK, by far. And it's the case every year

[UKR]

Anywhere the list is given? Like number of applications and number of winners?

In last year which country had the highest winners?

By highest winner you mean highest number of winners?

In that case, it's UK, by far. And it's the case every year

[Cr@zyChem]

In last year which country had the highest winners?

By highest winner you mean highest number of winners?

In that case, it's UK, by far. And it's the case every year

Since UK has the highest rate of successful applications, and the UK fellowship will be paid by UK, doesn`t it mean more people will get funded by EC then?

[AnotherCandidate]

In last year which country had the highest winners?

By highest winner you mean highest number of winners?

In that case, it's UK, by far. And it's the case every year

Since UK has the highest rate of successful applications, and the UK fellowship will be paid by UK, doesn`t it mean more people will get funded by EC then?

I don't know how much UK contributed this year, but usually it received more grants than it contribution. As it is now an associated country , it will have to compensate if the number of grants and the contribution is unbalanced.

So it is possible that there will be more grants than what we could expect from this year budget.

[AnotherCandidate]

In this document you can find on the EU website, it is clearly written that UK did contributed to Horizon 2020 budget. It is the second contributor, behind Germany, just a little ahead of France

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/dashboard/ ... e/analysis


For the number of UK grants, I only found an old graph, but I saw the one of 2019 or 2020 during CNRS presentation to prepare this grant and it was roughly the same.