2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

megasphaera@yahoo.it
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:57 am

Re: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Forum

Post by megasphaera@yahoo.it » Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:11 pm

sherpaz wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:06 pm
SOC-2018 wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:52 pm
It will keep your mind busy while waiting for the results! ;) :mrgreen: (take a look at the last page) ;)
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/fi ... tors_0.pdf
Looks like it is more difficult correcting than writing the proposal :shock:
It should be not. I think they are actually guided during the process to respect all the evaluation parameters in the form. Also reading previous posts in the discussion, the scientific project should not be a priority during evaluation.
I have been to lots of seminars for the MSCA IF and the first thing they always say is that science it is not the main thing. This is intended to be a training fellowship in the broader sense (not only science, but also dissemination, etc.). If you submit a proposal thinking that you publication record and your project is amazing, you are going to fail (i have seen myself people with only one first author paper getting the fellowship). You need to show that you can think of something innovative in the science and outreach aspect, that you are going to learn lots of stuff and transfer your previous knowledge to the host.
After this long thought :roll: evaluators are still humans and if they don't like your project or the way you wrote it, they will find ways to reject it, but the chair, vice chairs and so on, should be there to see that everything goes according to the rules established by the EU.

I am wondering when they will start to evaluate and rank the proposal, waiting for the results is being life consuming!

Good luck to everyone!

ATBGF2017
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:31 pm

Re: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Forum

Post by ATBGF2017 » Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:59 pm

Science might seem to be the main thing. But it is. It is true that if the evaluators do not like your proposal they will make up shit to kill your scores. For example last year evaluators wrote that I did not specify the number of articles to be submitted as part of the project. While, in reality I not only specified the number but also the name of the outlets. Since there is little control mechanism over the evaluators, all you can hope is that your project goes to decent evaluators who will not make shit up and score your project according to the guidelines. Yet, from what I have heard and experienced, this does not seem to be the case all the time.
megasphaera@yahoo.it wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:11 pm
sherpaz wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:06 pm
SOC-2018 wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:52 pm
It will keep your mind busy while waiting for the results! ;) :mrgreen: (take a look at the last page) ;)
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/fi ... tors_0.pdf
Looks like it is more difficult correcting than writing the proposal :shock:
It should be not. I think they are actually guided during the process to respect all the evaluation parameters in the form. Also reading previous posts in the discussion, the scientific project should not be a priority during evaluation.
I have been to lots of seminars for the MSCA IF and the first thing they always say is that science it is not the main thing. This is intended to be a training fellowship in the broader sense (not only science, but also dissemination, etc.). If you submit a proposal thinking that you publication record and your project is amazing, you are going to fail (i have seen myself people with only one first author paper getting the fellowship). You need to show that you can think of something innovative in the science and outreach aspect, that you are going to learn lots of stuff and transfer your previous knowledge to the host.
After this long thought :roll: evaluators are still humans and if they don't like your project or the way you wrote it, they will find ways to reject it, but the chair, vice chairs and so on, should be there to see that everything goes according to the rules established by the EU.

I am wondering when they will start to evaluate and rank the proposal, waiting for the results is being life consuming!

Good luck to everyone!

megasphaera@yahoo.it
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:57 am

Re: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Forum

Post by megasphaera@yahoo.it » Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:22 pm

ATBGF2017 wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:59 pm
Science might seem to be the main thing. But it is. It is true that if the evaluators do not like your proposal they will make up shit to kill your scores. For example last year evaluators wrote that I did not specify the number of articles to be submitted as part of the project. While, in reality I not only specified the number but also the name of the outlets. Since there is little control mechanism over the evaluators, all you can hope is that your project goes to decent evaluators who will not make shit up and score your project according to the guidelines. Yet, from what I have heard and experienced, this does not seem to be the case all the time.
megasphaera@yahoo.it wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:11 pm
sherpaz wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:06 pm


Looks like it is more difficult correcting than writing the proposal :shock:
It should be not. I think they are actually guided during the process to respect all the evaluation parameters in the form. Also reading previous posts in the discussion, the scientific project should not be a priority during evaluation.
I have been to lots of seminars for the MSCA IF and the first thing they always say is that science it is not the main thing. This is intended to be a training fellowship in the broader sense (not only science, but also dissemination, etc.). If you submit a proposal thinking that you publication record and your project is amazing, you are going to fail (i have seen myself people with only one first author paper getting the fellowship). You need to show that you can think of something innovative in the science and outreach aspect, that you are going to learn lots of stuff and transfer your previous knowledge to the host.
After this long thought :roll: evaluators are still humans and if they don't like your project or the way you wrote it, they will find ways to reject it, but the chair, vice chairs and so on, should be there to see that everything goes according to the rules established by the EU.

I am wondering when they will start to evaluate and rank the proposal, waiting for the results is being life consuming!

Good luck to everyone!

I know very well the feeling of being rejected (the project i have presented to the MSCA call this year has been rejected 5 times from different agencies), but as my former PI used to say to me "if they say so, you (and I mean in general) did not write and stated it clearly".

ATBGF2017
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:31 pm

Re: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Forum

Post by ATBGF2017 » Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:30 pm

I am over the frustration (hopefully). I have re-submitted the project and took into account all the criticisms. We will see how it goes. Again good luck to everyone!

megasphaera@yahoo.it wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:22 pm
ATBGF2017 wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:59 pm
Science might seem to be the main thing. But it is. It is true that if the evaluators do not like your proposal they will make up shit to kill your scores. For example last year evaluators wrote that I did not specify the number of articles to be submitted as part of the project. While, in reality I not only specified the number but also the name of the outlets. Since there is little control mechanism over the evaluators, all you can hope is that your project goes to decent evaluators who will not make shit up and score your project according to the guidelines. Yet, from what I have heard and experienced, this does not seem to be the case all the time.
megasphaera@yahoo.it wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:11 pm


It should be not. I think they are actually guided during the process to respect all the evaluation parameters in the form. Also reading previous posts in the discussion, the scientific project should not be a priority during evaluation.
I have been to lots of seminars for the MSCA IF and the first thing they always say is that science it is not the main thing. This is intended to be a training fellowship in the broader sense (not only science, but also dissemination, etc.). If you submit a proposal thinking that you publication record and your project is amazing, you are going to fail (i have seen myself people with only one first author paper getting the fellowship). You need to show that you can think of something innovative in the science and outreach aspect, that you are going to learn lots of stuff and transfer your previous knowledge to the host.
After this long thought :roll: evaluators are still humans and if they don't like your project or the way you wrote it, they will find ways to reject it, but the chair, vice chairs and so on, should be there to see that everything goes according to the rules established by the EU.

I am wondering when they will start to evaluate and rank the proposal, waiting for the results is being life consuming!

Good luck to everyone!

I know very well the feeling of being rejected (the project i have presented to the MSCA call this year has been rejected 5 times from different agencies), but as my former PI used to say to me "if they say so, you (and I mean in general) did not write and stated it clearly".

megasphaera@yahoo.it
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:57 am

Re: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Forum

Post by megasphaera@yahoo.it » Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:39 pm

ATBGF2017 wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:30 pm
I am over the frustration (hopefully). I have re-submitted the project and took into account all the criticisms. We will see how it goes. Again good luck to everyone!

megasphaera@yahoo.it wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:22 pm
ATBGF2017 wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:59 pm
Science might seem to be the main thing. But it is. It is true that if the evaluators do not like your proposal they will make up shit to kill your scores. For example last year evaluators wrote that I did not specify the number of articles to be submitted as part of the project. While, in reality I not only specified the number but also the name of the outlets. Since there is little control mechanism over the evaluators, all you can hope is that your project goes to decent evaluators who will not make shit up and score your project according to the guidelines. Yet, from what I have heard and experienced, this does not seem to be the case all the time.


I know very well the feeling of being rejected (the project i have presented to the MSCA call this year has been rejected 5 times from different agencies), but as my former PI used to say to me "if they say so, you (and I mean in general) did not write and stated it clearly".
That's good, resilience is the only way to survive academia and science. At least MSCA give you a detailed (maybe not always :lol: ) and helpfull (maybe not always, again :lol: ) list of points to improve the project. Most of the evaluators from other postdoc fellowships (EMBO, FEBS, etc) will only look at your papers list, then decide on your project and reject your application based on a simple "applicant does not have enough papers and the project has not a clear focus.

I think is good to talk about past experiences, most of the successful PIs or researchers have got hundred of rejections before getting there!! The only thing is that they do not talk about it!

Cheers!

SOC-2018
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:23 pm

Re: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Forum

Post by SOC-2018 » Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:35 pm

Speaking of sharing our previous experience of failing to win an MSCA fellowship, this is the evaluation of my last year application (I have left out sensitive information!) :

Score: 3.70 (Threshold: 0/5.00 , Weight: 50.00%)
• Quality and credibility of the research/innovation action (level of novelty, appropriate consideration of inter/multidisciplinary
and gender aspects)
• Quality and appropriateness of the training and of the two-way transfer of knowledge between the researcher and the host
• Quality of the supervision and of the integration in the team/institution
• Capacity of the researcher to reach or re-enforce a position of professional maturity/independence
Strengths:

- The research objectives are very clearly defined. The theoretical frame is properly described and solidly founded.
- The research project properly presents the two-way transfer of knowledge: the host can gain from the researcher: knowledge and skills
concerning teaching ............., conducting research on ............., cultural and area-specific knowledge; the researcher can gain from the host advanced research knowledge and skills, advanced organizational skills, communication (including writing)and presentation knowledge and skills.
- The qualifications and experience of the supervisor are good and appropriate and at a high level.
- The integration of the researcher within the host institution is good and appropriate (variuos measures taken to integrate the researcher in
different areas of expertise; appropriate international networking opportunities). The track record of the researcher is fully congruent with the
researcher's level of experience.
- The nature and quality of the host institution research environment fits excellently for the research proposed.
- The researcher's past personal experience and proposed research fit very well the proposed research and will support the researcher to reach a position of professional independence in the future.
- The host institution is of high excellence and expertise in the field of the research proposed.
- Gender aspects are appropriately addressed.
Weaknesses:
- The state-of-the-art is not developed comprehensively enough (the project description does not adequately consider the newest sources
published in recent years).
- The adopted methodology is rather eclectic and only partially credible.
- The proposed research does not contain sufficiently well presented interdisciplinary aspects.
- The proposed training initiatives at the host institution are not specific enough.
- Originality and innovative aspects of the research programme are not conclusively demonstrated, as the information on the extent to which
the proposed research action goes beyond the researcher’s PhD dissertation is insufficient.


I have done my best this year to resolve all the weaknesses identified by the evaluators and am impatiently looking forward to a positive decision (fingers crossed ;) )

ATBGF2017
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:31 pm

Re: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Forum

Post by ATBGF2017 » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:05 pm

For me this was the most objective part actually. I also tried to address the evaluator comments as well. But, I do not want to raise my hopes as these things usually go to different evaluators who might raise different issues. That's why we need luck! :)
SOC-2018 wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:35 pm
Speaking of sharing our previous experience of failing to win an MSCA fellowship, this is the evaluation of my last year application (I have left out sensitive information!) :

Score: 3.70 (Threshold: 0/5.00 , Weight: 50.00%)
• Quality and credibility of the research/innovation action (level of novelty, appropriate consideration of inter/multidisciplinary
and gender aspects)
• Quality and appropriateness of the training and of the two-way transfer of knowledge between the researcher and the host
• Quality of the supervision and of the integration in the team/institution
• Capacity of the researcher to reach or re-enforce a position of professional maturity/independence
Strengths:

- The research objectives are very clearly defined. The theoretical frame is properly described and solidly founded.
- The research project properly presents the two-way transfer of knowledge: the host can gain from the researcher: knowledge and skills
concerning teaching ............., conducting research on ............., cultural and area-specific knowledge; the researcher can gain from the host advanced research knowledge and skills, advanced organizational skills, communication (including writing)and presentation knowledge and skills.
- The qualifications and experience of the supervisor are good and appropriate and at a high level.
- The integration of the researcher within the host institution is good and appropriate (variuos measures taken to integrate the researcher in
different areas of expertise; appropriate international networking opportunities). The track record of the researcher is fully congruent with the
researcher's level of experience.
- The nature and quality of the host institution research environment fits excellently for the research proposed.
- The researcher's past personal experience and proposed research fit very well the proposed research and will support the researcher to reach a position of professional independence in the future.
- The host institution is of high excellence and expertise in the field of the research proposed.
- Gender aspects are appropriately addressed.
Weaknesses:
- The state-of-the-art is not developed comprehensively enough (the project description does not adequately consider the newest sources
published in recent years).
- The adopted methodology is rather eclectic and only partially credible.
- The proposed research does not contain sufficiently well presented interdisciplinary aspects.
- The proposed training initiatives at the host institution are not specific enough.
- Originality and innovative aspects of the research programme are not conclusively demonstrated, as the information on the extent to which
the proposed research action goes beyond the researcher’s PhD dissertation is insufficient.


I have done my best this year to resolve all the weaknesses identified by the evaluators and am impatiently looking forward to a positive decision (fingers crossed ;) )

Bren
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:55 pm

Re: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Forum

Post by Bren » Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:07 am

I notice that there are a lot more applicants this year than last year. I'm a bit surprised at this, I kind of expected there to be less what with Brexit looming, assumed less UK people would apply. Also, theres a hell of a lot more money in the fund this year than in previous years. I looked at the figures a few days ago and I its 270m this year vs 230m (I think) last year. I've no insight into why there is such a big jump in applications, or why there is more dough available, or how these things might impact on cut off scores. If I understood how such things worked I would be have a proper job, rather than being a qualitative social scientist.

This is my first year applying and I aint going to stress, if I don't get it then thats life, not the end of the world. Having said that, I'm pretty sure I will get it as my research idea is goddam amazing!!! Seriously though, best of luck to all and let the chips land where they may.

ATBGF2017
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:31 pm

Re: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Forum

Post by ATBGF2017 » Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:30 am

For Global Fellowships, the cutoff should significantly decrease. The number of applications is slightly less (857 vs 900) but the budget increase is huge. It went up from 33 million to 45. So I am expecting the cutoff to be around 88-91.

For European fellowships, I am not sure. Budget went up from 205 to 220 but considering the number of applicants, the cutoff will probably go up as well.
Bren wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:07 am
I notice that there are a lot more applicants this year than last year. I'm a bit surprised at this, I kind of expected there to be less what with Brexit looming, assumed less UK people would apply. Also, theres a hell of a lot more money in the fund this year than in previous years. I looked at the figures a few days ago and I its 270m this year vs 230m (I think) last year. I've no insight into why there is such a big jump in applications, or why there is more dough available, or how these things might impact on cut off scores. If I understood how such things worked I would be have a proper job, rather than being a qualitative social scientist.

This is my first year applying and I aint going to stress, if I don't get it then thats life, not the end of the world. Having said that, I'm pretty sure I will get it as my research idea is goddam amazing!!! Seriously though, best of luck to all and let the chips land where they may.

danGFSOC
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:46 am

Re: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Forum

Post by danGFSOC » Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:58 am

Last year in the Excellence part, I had just a point listed as weakness:

- The proposal analyses only partially the link between the most recent research work conducted by the researcher and the proposed project,
therefore the project’s novelty is not convincingly demonstrated; in particular, the new targeted elements are not adequately presented and it is
unclear how the researcher’s previous experience will be expended.

The comment was not very clear to me and in any case costed me the fellowship. The Impact and Implementation parts included comments that were very marginal (e.g.: the applicant did not specify the frequency for updating websites... "or the contingency plan relies on supervisors", just because I did not explicitly specify that it was me with the help of one of my supervisor that will address potential problems arising during the fellowship). But weaknesses, although marginal, were enough to fix my score few points under the cut-off. My impression is that sometimes the real reason one does not get it, in particular when you reach a high score, is not codified in comments. Simply, evaluators (or maybe chairs and vice chairs) found other projects more relevant than yours (because, although it is not never said, evaluations are always comparative in nature). But, having to justify it by following the MC rules and criteria, they codify the "rejection" in very weird ways.

After one learns to write a good proposal, luck is needed: i.e. a favorable mix of evaluators and projects that are evaluated with yours.

Maybe the only way to narrow the influence of luck on the evaluation is to build a very close link to EU policies and agenda: the project should be relevant, i.e. useful, for EU issues. I read abstracts and projects where the scientific side was just decent and topics were not very original or sometimes very very specific; however the link to EU policies and to a political/social/economic/cultural problem was so clear and evident, and sometimes very creatively put, that evaluators couldn't but award the project.
ATBGF2017 wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:05 pm
For me this was the most objective part actually. I also tried to address the evaluator comments as well. But, I do not want to raise my hopes as these things usually go to different evaluators who might raise different issues. That's why we need luck! :)
SOC-2018 wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:35 pm
Speaking of sharing our previous experience of failing to win an MSCA fellowship, this is the evaluation of my last year application (I have left out sensitive information!) :

Score: 3.70 (Threshold: 0/5.00 , Weight: 50.00%)
• Quality and credibility of the research/innovation action (level of novelty, appropriate consideration of inter/multidisciplinary
and gender aspects)
• Quality and appropriateness of the training and of the two-way transfer of knowledge between the researcher and the host
• Quality of the supervision and of the integration in the team/institution
• Capacity of the researcher to reach or re-enforce a position of professional maturity/independence
Strengths:

- The research objectives are very clearly defined. The theoretical frame is properly described and solidly founded.
- The research project properly presents the two-way transfer of knowledge: the host can gain from the researcher: knowledge and skills
concerning teaching ............., conducting research on ............., cultural and area-specific knowledge; the researcher can gain from the host advanced research knowledge and skills, advanced organizational skills, communication (including writing)and presentation knowledge and skills.
- The qualifications and experience of the supervisor are good and appropriate and at a high level.
- The integration of the researcher within the host institution is good and appropriate (variuos measures taken to integrate the researcher in
different areas of expertise; appropriate international networking opportunities). The track record of the researcher is fully congruent with the
researcher's level of experience.
- The nature and quality of the host institution research environment fits excellently for the research proposed.
- The researcher's past personal experience and proposed research fit very well the proposed research and will support the researcher to reach a position of professional independence in the future.
- The host institution is of high excellence and expertise in the field of the research proposed.
- Gender aspects are appropriately addressed.
Weaknesses:
- The state-of-the-art is not developed comprehensively enough (the project description does not adequately consider the newest sources
published in recent years).
- The adopted methodology is rather eclectic and only partially credible.
- The proposed research does not contain sufficiently well presented interdisciplinary aspects.
- The proposed training initiatives at the host institution are not specific enough.
- Originality and innovative aspects of the research programme are not conclusively demonstrated, as the information on the extent to which
the proposed research action goes beyond the researcher’s PhD dissertation is insufficient.


I have done my best this year to resolve all the weaknesses identified by the evaluators and am impatiently looking forward to a positive decision (fingers crossed ;) )

Locked