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

[Sleek_IF]

First application in my case, I was received by 2 persons, watched the NCP mettings replays on YouTube and had access to a former successful proposal written in my lab. I wrote my proposal in the last moment, I began 1 month prior the deadline.

Even though the time of preparation was short, the access to resources which you got should make a whole lot of difference (at least in all the MSCA oriented/formal aspect of the proposal).

[Damanera]

I think you would have to be a vat-grown genetically engineered Brussels super bureaucrat to be able to write a successful proposal on your own these days. There are so many little weird idiosyncrasies and details you need to account for, which you would only really know about if you attended NCP seminars or followed the Net4Mobility MSCA survival guide.

Did everyone do this? Would be interesting to see what success rates are like for those that did/didn't

Yes. I am de facto that bureaucrat and evaluator on other EC calls but I still needed assistance from my host in UK. Without any assistance the max I reached at on my own was the reserve list… twice… so I hope that will make a difference this time. Fingers crossed to all of us.

[liukank]

First time I spent two weeks and no support then got 74.

Second time I spent 5 months and got full supports of several people and still got 84.4.

Third time (Now) I spent around 5 months and 5 people reviewed and provided comments. It was revised several times. I was told not funded.

I hope that's not the case, otherwise I'll have no chances... Done none of those...

It is difficult to know what the evaluators will pick up on. If they like the idea, they often ignore small issues with the project proposal. If they don't like the idea, they will list all sort of problems to reduce the mark. I had an application submitted twice: first it got 82.5 second time 80.2. The second application was far better in terms of organisation and presentation, but was awarded a lower score, and hardly any meaningful comments. I know the review process can be very unfair, but still looking forward to the comments for my new project proposal

That's odd that you've got a lower score the second time. Theoretically, if you stated that you are resubmitting, if you get a lower score than the previous year the evaluators have to to justify this and say why it was worse than the previous application.

[Baka mitai]

That's odd that you've got a lower score the second time. Theoretically, if you stated that you are resubmitting, if you get a lower score than the previous year the evaluators have to to justify this and say why it was worse than the previous application.

This prompted me to check my scores:
- 1st year, no support whatsoever, but read guidelines, tutorials etc. = 85.6
- 2nd year, same project, but I followed each and every suggestion of the evaluators (including changing my host... yeah, they did that), built the proposal together with the hosts, got support from the university's research management office, attended MSCA presentations, compared with several successful applications in my section, even choose an host with a seal of excellence AND stated that it was a resubmission = 84.8 (!)
- 3rd year (this one), again corrected everything, got even further in the MSCA technical language, looked at UK successful application and included UK tricks (Vitae), watched all the videos by the MSCA about the changes in this new call, and following the advice of several "grant beasts" at my lab, re-focused the topic on my forte = still in Evaluation

...so I tend to think like another user said, despite all the efforts towards a more objective system, a bad evaluation remains possible and can screw everything up. Or you can also be lucky and get a score "above your weight", I don't know, maybe that's what happened in my first try.

[Antani]

I think you would have to be a vat-grown genetically engineered Brussels super bureaucrat to be able to write a successful proposal on your own these days. There are so many little weird idiosyncrasies and details you need to account for, which you would only really know about if you attended NCP seminars or followed the Net4Mobility MSCA survival guide.

I hope that's not the case, otherwise I'll have no chances... Done none of those...

It is difficult to know what the evaluators will pick up on. If they like the idea, they often ignore small issues with the project proposal. If they don't like the idea, they will list all sort of problems to reduce the mark. I had an application submitted twice: first it got 82.5 second time 80.2. The second application was far better in terms of organisation and presentation, but was awarded a lower score, and hardly any meaningful comments. I know the review process can be very unfair, but still looking forward to the comments for my new project proposal

Exactly the same for me. 83 the first year and 77 the second one where I just addressed all weakness of first review… and I understood that this fellowship is like winning a lottery…

[Baka mitai]

It is difficult to know what the evaluators will pick up on. If they like the idea, they often ignore small issues with the project proposal. If they don't like the idea, they will list all sort of problems to reduce the mark. I had an application submitted twice: first it got 82.5 second time 80.2. The second application was far better in terms of organisation and presentation, but was awarded a lower score, and hardly any meaningful comments. I know the review process can be very unfair, but still looking forward to the comments for my new project proposal

Exactly the same for me. 83 the first year and 77 the second one where I just addressed all weakness of first review… and I understood that this fellowship is like winning a lottery…

And here I thought that my case was unfair, but a 6 points difference, for a resub? That is unfair, I feel you

[liukank]

That's odd that you've got a lower score the second time. Theoretically, if you stated that you are resubmitting, if you get a lower score than the previous year the evaluators have to to justify this and say why it was worse than the previous application.

This prompted me to check my scores:
- 1st year, no support whatsoever, but read guidelines, tutorials etc. = 85.6
- 2nd year, same project, but I followed each and every suggestion of the evaluators (including changing my host... yeah, they did that), built the proposal together with the hosts, got support from the university's research management office, attended MSCA presentations, compared with several successful applications in my section, even choose an host with a seal of excellence AND stated that it was a resubmission = 84.8 (!)
- 3rd year (this one), again corrected everything, got even further in the MSCA technical language, looked at UK successful application and included UK tricks (Vitae), watched all the videos by the MSCA about the changes in this new call, and following the advice of several "grant beasts" at my lab, re-focused the topic on my forte = still in Evaluation

...so I tend to think like another user said, despite all the efforts towards a more objective system, a bad evaluation remains possible and can screw everything up. Or you can also be lucky and get a score "above your weight", I don't know, maybe that's what happened in my first try.

Wow, this is very discouraging! I would expect at least some sort of justification because that is what is stated in the guide for applicants. If they think the resubmission is worse than the previous one, they should explain why. Otherwise applicants will never be able to actually improve. Makes me think the system is rather unfair and lacking objectivity. Really a lottery, not depending of how really good your application is, but the evaluators' mood.
I feel very demoralised now... This is my second application (88.4 first time) and after changing hosts, moving from a EF to a GF and greatly improving the proposal I was expecting at least a couple of points more, but based on yours and others experience it could rather be that I don't even get 70!! How depressing...

[UKR]

Which section score reduced?

That's odd that you've got a lower score the second time. Theoretically, if you stated that you are resubmitting, if you get a lower score than the previous year the evaluators have to to justify this and say why it was worse than the previous application.

This prompted me to check my scores:
- 1st year, no support whatsoever, but read guidelines, tutorials etc. = 85.6
- 2nd year, same project, but I followed each and every suggestion of the evaluators (including changing my host... yeah, they did that), built the proposal together with the hosts, got support from the university's research management office, attended MSCA presentations, compared with several successful applications in my section, even choose an host with a seal of excellence AND stated that it was a resubmission = 84.8 (!)
- 3rd year (this one), again corrected everything, got even further in the MSCA technical language, looked at UK successful application and included UK tricks (Vitae), watched all the videos by the MSCA about the changes in this new call, and following the advice of several "grant beasts" at my lab, re-focused the topic on my forte = still in Evaluation

...so I tend to think like another user said, despite all the efforts towards a more objective system, a bad evaluation remains possible and can screw everything up. Or you can also be lucky and get a score "above your weight", I don't know, maybe that's what happened in my first try.

[UKR]

Which section score was reduced?

I hope that's not the case, otherwise I'll have no chances... Done none of those...

It is difficult to know what the evaluators will pick up on. If they like the idea, they often ignore small issues with the project proposal. If they don't like the idea, they will list all sort of problems to reduce the mark. I had an application submitted twice: first it got 82.5 second time 80.2. The second application was far better in terms of organisation and presentation, but was awarded a lower score, and hardly any meaningful comments. I know the review process can be very unfair, but still looking forward to the comments for my new project proposal

Exactly the same for me. 83 the first year and 77 the second one where I just addressed all weakness of first review… and I understood that this fellowship is like winning a lottery…

[Greyrock]

First time I spent two weeks and no support then got 74.

Second time I spent 5 months and got full supports of several people and still got 84.4.

Third time (Now) I spent around 5 months and 5 people reviewed and provided comments. It was revised several times. I was told not funded.

It is difficult to know what the evaluators will pick up on. If they like the idea, they often ignore small issues with the project proposal. If they don't like the idea, they will list all sort of problems to reduce the mark. I had an application submitted twice: first it got 82.5 second time 80.2. The second application was far better in terms of organisation and presentation, but was awarded a lower score, and hardly any meaningful comments. I know the review process can be very unfair, but still looking forward to the comments for my new project proposal

The competition is indeed very intense!