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

[Greyrock]

I’m curious about the amount of times people have applied - I thought it was a two time thing and you’re out. Is this not so?

[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

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.

I’m curious about the amount of times you applied - I thought it was a two time thing and you’re out. Is this not so?

[Frydendahl]

I’m curious about the amount of times people have applied - I thought it was a two time thing and you’re out. Is this not so?

I think they've only just implemented rules that can block you from resubmission this year after the 'disaster' year they had last time with ~12.000 applications, and even then, as long as you get over 70 you're fine to resubmit.

To be honest, the variability in scores are a huge problem, and frankly you need a solid proposal and huge amount of luck to get the grant. Personally I blame the large range of scores - how an evaluator deduces the difference between a 4.6 and 4.9 score is incredibly subjective, and can basically make the difference between success or failure for a proposal.

[michelef]

I’m curious about the amount of times people have applied - I thought it was a two time thing and you’re out. Is this not so?

I think they've only just implemented rules that can block you from resubmission this year after the 'disaster' year they had last time with ~12.000 applications, and even then, as long as you get over 70 you're fine to resubmit.

Also, you can't apply after more than 8 years from your PhD I think

[Greyrock]

I’m curious about the amount of times people have applied - I thought it was a two time thing and you’re out. Is this not so?

I think they've only just implemented rules that can block you from resubmission this year after the 'disaster' year they had last time with ~12.000 applications, and even then, as long as you get over 70 you're fine to resubmit.

Also, you can't apply after more than 8 years from your PhD I think

Oh this is encouraging, I can apply next year again then. Thanks

[Frydendahl]

I’m curious about the amount of times people have applied - I thought it was a two time thing and you’re out. Is this not so?

I think they've only just implemented rules that can block you from resubmission this year after the 'disaster' year they had last time with ~12.000 applications, and even then, as long as you get over 70 you're fine to resubmit.

Also, you can't apply after more than 8 years from your PhD I think

I believe it actually used to be 5 years until this year's call. I may be misremembering. Last time I personally applied was 3 years ago.

I think they've only just implemented rules that can block you from resubmission this year after the 'disaster' year they had last time with ~12.000 applications, and even then, as long as you get over 70 you're fine to resubmit.

Also, you can't apply after more than 8 years from your PhD I think

Oh this is encouraging, I can apply next year again then. Thanks

Just look out for the mobility rules - you can't have been in the host institution country for more than 1 year by the time of submission. This is why I haven't personally applied again until now (I'm using the MC to go back home after my first postdoc abroad).

[michelef]

I think they've only just implemented rules that can block you from resubmission this year after the 'disaster' year they had last time with ~12.000 applications, and even then, as long as you get over 70 you're fine to resubmit.

Also, you can't apply after more than 8 years from your PhD I think

I believe it actually used to be 5 years until this year's call. I may be misremembering. Last time I personally applied was 3 years ago.

Also, you can't apply after more than 8 years from your PhD I think

Oh this is encouraging, I can apply next year again then. Thanks

Just look out for the mobility rules - you can't have been in the host institution country for more than 1 year by the time of submission. This is why I haven't personally applied again until now (I'm using the MC to go back home after my first postdoc abroad).

No the cut-off based on years from PhD was introduced this year. Before there was no such limit for the msca fellowships (the cut-off was applied only to ERC grants). I think they introduced it to reduce a little bit the number of applications, which was crazy high in the past years.

It doesn't make any sense anyway, because it is 8 years for the msca (a postdoctoral fellowship) and 7 years for the ERC-stg (a PI-level grant).

[anonymous_insider]

I’m curious about the amount of times people have applied - I thought it was a two time thing and you’re out. Is this not so?

I think they've only just implemented rules that can block you from resubmission this year after the 'disaster' year they had last time with ~12.000 applications, and even then, as long as you get over 70 you're fine to resubmit.

To be honest, the variability in scores are a huge problem, and frankly you need a solid proposal and huge amount of luck to get the grant. Personally I blame the large range of scores - how an evaluator deduces the difference between a 4.6 and 4.9 score is incredibly subjective, and can basically make the difference between success or failure for a proposal.

Evaluators can only step by 0.5 pt increments. They must refer to the scoring meaning, which is publicly available, and is based on integers only (1-2-3-4-5). Quality check ensures that the score of each evaluator for each criterion is consistent with the comments. If not, you are required to adjust the score accordingly.
The 4.6 or 4.9 in your example are the result of the weighted average of the median scores for each criterion.

[Baka mitai]

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.

Excellence 4.3 to 4.0
Impact 4.9 to 4.8
On the other hand, I grabed some points in Implementation.

[fique86]

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.

I agree with people saying that having the proposal reviewed extensively before submission is very useful, if not essential, considering the level of perfection needed to be competitive... But I wanted to add that reviews and suggestions have to be taken with a grain of salt. When I applied in 2018 I got my proposal reviewed by the NCP, and I had to completely disregard the revision because it was apparently based on an outdated template. Following the NCP's suggestions would have meant an automatic fail. The few suggestions received by my Girlfriend's supervisor this year were sometimes pure nonsense, contradictory, or outright impossible to implement. So in my experience getting many reviews could also be dangerous if you don't first understand how to write the msca proposal... so many reviews don't automatically mean a more competitive proposal

The same thing happened to me. Last year my host appointed one agent they paid to read my proposal; we had one meeting to discuss about what is to be expected and straight away I could sense that she was not exactly familiar with what is expected by this fellowship. But I just shrugged it off and felt that she wouldn't be hired if she didn't know what she was talking about. Then, I had to submit the proposal to her before the final submission to the system; and I noticed that she had made sizeable adjustment to the format. One adjustment that I think was one of the factors of my rejection is she separated the WP chart into different tables, and put two earlier in the proposal (like she put WP related to methodology in Section 1 of B1, in the Methods section. I was like, OK... but again, I thought she must know what she's doing. Then, when I got the review's comment, the reviewer said that my proposal is a mess and WP shouldn't be separated and should be put in the appointed Section. I was devastated.