CountZ wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:16 pmDidn't get it - 82% - down from 93% preciously.
If that's not crazy in itself - the report contradicts itself, AND one of the sections only scored 4.5 but has no weaknesses listed to explain the missing 0.5 points. Another great job done by the European Commission.
2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)
Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)
-
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:24 pm
Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)
Can you tell us more about the appeal process?
Dajm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:20 pmThis sounds extremely unprofessional.
I know there is no appeal process but I at least would like ton provide some feedback on unprofessional reviews back to the grant administrators. Please, let me know if you think we could put together a collective complaint of sorts (presumably, a more efficient way than individual feedback) you.
CountZ wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:16 pmDidn't get it - 82% - down from 93% preciously.
If that's not crazy in itself - the report contradicts itself, AND one of the sections only scored 4.5 but has no weaknesses listed to explain the missing 0.5 points. Another great job done by the European Commission.
Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)
I believe there isnt one..
AdinaBabesh wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:21 pmCan you tell us more about the appeal process?
Dajm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:20 pmThis sounds extremely unprofessional.
I know there is no appeal process but I at least would like ton provide some feedback on unprofessional reviews back to the grant administrators. Please, let me know if you think we could put together a collective complaint of sorts (presumably, a more efficient way than individual feedback) you.
CountZ wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:16 pmDidn't get it - 82% - down from 93% preciously.
If that's not crazy in itself - the report contradicts itself, AND one of the sections only scored 4.5 but has no weaknesses listed to explain the missing 0.5 points. Another great job done by the European Commission.
Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)
Just to say, I scored 4,70 EXCELLENCE area last year, just minor changes ( as they themselves suggested) and got 3,00 in the same area this year...
Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)
I'm all for this.
But what do you think the impact would be of addressing the MSCA people?
But what do you think the impact would be of addressing the MSCA people?
Dajm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:20 pmThis sounds extremely unprofessional.
I know there is no appeal process but I at least would like to provide some feedback on unprofessional reviews back to the grant administrators. Please, let me know if you think we could put together a collective complaint of sorts (presumably, a more efficient way than individual feedback).
Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)
CAR, 844xxx, it's in, 92.30. Thanks guy, for the company, the laughter and the shared madness. I think I'll miss you!
Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)
Unfortunately I've just received the rejection letter
Congratulations to those who succeeded!
Congratulations to those who succeeded!
Re: 2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)
Get the reviewers to do their job or hire better reviewers. Justify deducted points substantively. Reach consensus before combining individual scores, don't just pile individual comments together. Consider previous years evaluations in resubmission cases. Get your benchmarking straight. Have an open mind, think outside disciplinary boundaries. There is a process to evaluation which is clearly detailed in the reviewer guideline (and yes it mentions having an open mind), which some reviewers are not following.
CountZ wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:32 pmI'm all for this.
But what do you think the impact would be of addressing the MSCA people?
Would they just ignore it? Would they seek to punish us for the next call?
Dajm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:20 pmThis sounds extremely unprofessional.
I know there is no appeal process but I at least would like to provide some feedback on unprofessional reviews back to the grant administrators. Please, let me know if you think we could put together a collective complaint of sorts (presumably, a more efficient way than individual feedback).
CountZ wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:16 pmDidn't get it - 82% - down from 93% preciously.
If that's not crazy in itself - the report contradicts itself, AND one of the sections only scored 4.5 but has no weaknesses listed to explain the missing 0.5 points. Another great job done by the European Commission.
Last edited by Dajm on Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.